Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the quorum for conducting business in relation to the Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill remain as at present.—[Mr. Willie W. Hamilton.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Japan

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the change in the volume, value and types of goods and services exported to Japan in 1985, as compared with the previous five years.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): Information on volume of trade with individual countries is not available. Between 1980 and 1985 the value of United Kingdom visible exports to Japan rose from £597 million to £1,015 million, with textiles and chemicals preeminent. The latest available estimate of our invisible surplus with Japan is of £720 million for 1982.

Mr. Chapman: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment. He will be aware, as the rest of us are, that our current trading deficit with Japan is now running annually at over £3,000 million, and that at least part of that is due to the Japanese failing to observe fair reciprocal trading standards. Does he not think that it is high time the Government consulted other countries in a similar trading position and insisted that the Japanese Government took more imports, and that there was a planned reduction in the imbalance?

Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kindness. Certainly I share his anxieties, as I believe do right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I appreciate his remarks about co-ordinating action with other countries. I had informal discussions with Commissioner De Clercq last week on this subject, and I shall be attending the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg next week, at which this subject will be discussed. The Community will be reviewing its policy towards Japan.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his appointment? We know that he is someone who will stand up realistically for British interests in the highest tradition. When he is in Europe,

will he tell the Japanese that we are tired of their promises, their hopes and their agreements? Will he explain to them that the nightmare of the Japanese destroying much of Europe's manufacturing base year after year must end, and that if they do not do it we shall do it for them?

Mr. Clark: Regrettably, many of the inroads to which my hon. Friend refers arise from the uncompetitiveness of European industry. Where it arises out of unfair practices, and where resistance to our import penetration into Japan arises from obstructions that are placed in the way of our trade penetration, there is an urgent need for action. The Japanese have introduced an action programme—

Mr. Skinner: Sold out to the Japanese.

Mr. Clark: Wait and see.

Mr. Skinner: Read it out.

Mr. Clark: I have not read anything yet. The action programme, so called, to which my hon. Friend has referred, and which the Japanese claim to be considerable, is the seventh of such promises that they have made. I admit that progress so far is extremely disappointing.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that he is already showing signs of having thrown in the towel on the question of trade with Japan? We hear this afternoon the coded language of the Minister for Bongo-bongo land. Is he aware that I cannot congratulate him upon getting this post, because it is like the Prime Minister putting Herod in charge of Mothercare?

Mr. Clark: I appreciate the special relationship that I always enjoy with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I take it as a compliment that he felt obliged to intervene as early as he did after my appointment, but he was making so much noise that he was incapable of listening to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). When he reads it in Hansard, I hope that he will not be disappointed.

Mr. Holt: May 1 add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members and say to my hon. Friend that it might assist him in his new task if he held consultations with the Department of Education and Science on the subject of Japanese language teaching. According to a written answer to me, the Government do not know how much Japanese, if any, is being taught in our schools. Only four universities embrace the subject, but the Government do not know how many students are studying Japanese. If, instead of whingeing, we took on the Japanese on their own ground, learnt the language and sent out our entrepreneurs, engineers and technicians to Japan, our balance of trade would be very much better.

Mr. Clark: That is a very sensible suggestion. However, as my hon. Friend rightly says, it is better directed to those who are concerned with education rather than to my Department. One of the reasons for the overwhelming Japanese advance is that practically all Japanese business men can, when they choose to do so, speak perfect English.

Mr. Gould: Were our trading problems with the Japanese not resolved by the much publicised visit of the Minister's right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to Tokyo a year or so ago? What went wrong? Why did his visit not succeed?

Mr. Clark: I understand that Premier Nakasone has to face a general election in the autumn. It is generally recognised that the imminence of a general election inhibits long-term decision making.

Trades Union Congress

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the Trades Union Congress; and what matters will be discussed.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): I have no immediate plans to do so, but of course I am always prepared to have such a meeting.

Mr. Clarke: When the Secretary of State eventually holds such a meeting, will he bear in mind the worries of many people that for every three jobs that we had in the steel industry when this Government took office, we now have only one? Given that rapid decline, how long will it be before we cease to have an indigenous steel industry and no jobs in steel?

Mr. Channon: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the steel industry. He has raised it many times in the House. However, he overlooks the fact that during the past five years over £4·5 billion has been contributed to the steel industry. It is a little unfair to say that the Government have not tried to help it.

Mr. Favell: What would the position now be if our share of the domestic motor car industry market was not 34 per cent., but the 90 per cent. that it was 25 years ago? How many more jobs would now be secure at Ravenscraig and Gartcosh?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend makes the point extremely forcefully. Many of our problems would undoubtedly be very much eased if we had more than a 3·9 per cent. share of the European car market.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Secretary of State arrange a meeting with the Trades Union Congress to discuss the Government's disastrous plan to sell off Leyland Commercial Vehicles, Land Rover and Freight Rover to General Motors, with a loss of research and development and jobs in both Leyland Commercial Vehicles and General Motors? Why are this Government, who used to talk about batting for Britain, now continually batting for American multinationals?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman distorts the position. It was made clear to the House on several occasions last week that I am trying very hard to secure a viable future for those parts of British Leyland to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I want to try to ensure that that can be done, and that I shall obtain adequate assurances that will satisfy the House.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend think that it might be possible to persuade members of the TUC that an approach by Leyland Bus to Laird, possibly to take it over, or at least to amalgamate with it, might be more acceptable to the trade unions than the reverse? At the same time, will he consider the possibility of negotiations between Leyland Trucks and a European manufacturer, such as Daf, which may have more in common with Leyland in terms of manufacturing trucks than General Motors has.

Mr. Channon: As my hon. Friend is aware, at present talks are taking place between British Leyland and the Laird group about the future of Leyland Bus. Obviously the board would consider other proposals on their commercial merits in relation to the company as a whole.

Mr. Williams: When the Secretary of State eventually meets the TUC, how will he explain that after six so-called leaner, fitter, Tory years, during which world trade in manufactures has risen by 27 per cent., our manufacturing output has fallen, our manufacturing investment has fallen and is still 20 per cent. below the level when the Government came to office, and our manufacturing imports have soared by 45 per cent.?

Mr. Channon: I must point out that our manufacturing investment rose by 14·5 per cent. in 1984 and by a further 6 per cent. in 1985. Manufacturing exports increased by 8·5 per cent. in 1985, and, in terms of both volume and value, are at a record high.

Lloyd's (Inquiry)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance his Department is providing to the inquiry that he has set up into Lloyd's; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: A small secretariat has been established for the committee of inquiry, headed by a principal in my Department. Accommodation is also being provided within the Department. The committee's need for any further assistance will be kept under review.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If 25 Lloyd's agencies fail the honest, competent, solvent and fit and proper test for registration under the Lloyd's Act 1982, would it not place a question mark over the individuals who work in those agencies? Should not those individuals be barred from joining other agencies, and thereby secure registration?

Mr. Channon: It is not right for me to comment on individual cases—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because several cases are the subject of investigations. I hope that the committee will report soon in the summer, and if action is necessary we shall certainly take it.

Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that if evidence emerges, either as a result of the inquiry or from other sources, that the present regulatory regime at Lloyd's is unsatisfactory, he will introduce as a matter of urgency legislation to improve that regulatory regime, recognising that the present Financial Services Bill may not be the appropriate vehicle?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Financial Services Bill is not the appropriate vehicle. He asks a hypothetical question. If the committee were to report in that sense, we should wish to consider its findings as a matter of great urgency, and I should certainly want to establish the most satisfactory regime possible.

Mr. Sedgemore: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the results of his Department's investigation into the Unimar fraud, which spelt doom for Sir Peter Green, a past chairman of Lloyd's, are made available to the inquiry? Will he further ensure that the Bellew Parry and Raven report prepared by Sir Edward Singleton, which is complete, but for some unknown reason has not been published by Lloyd's, will be made available to the inquiry?

Mr. Channon: I shall ensure that the inquiry has all the relevant information.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the Lloyd's Act 1982 had been introduced this year, instead of three years ago, the House would never have accepted the principle of self-regulation? Does he further accept that many Conservative Members and other hon. Members do not accept that self-regulation is appropriate?

Mr. Channon: I am sure my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that we have set up the inquiry, that it will report speedily, and that the House can then consider the appropriate way forward.

Cornwall (Tin Mining)

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the future of Cornwall's tin mining industry.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Morrison): I cannot comment on the commercial prospects for Cornwall's tin mining industry until the market reopens and we know the price at which tin will settle. Negotiations to reach a settlement of the tin crisis are in progress and the Government are doing everything they can to ensure the best deal possible to enable orderly trading in tin to resume.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Cornish tin industry contributes £23 million a year to Cornwall's economy and £50 million a year to our balance of payments and employs 2,000 people? The Government have responded generously to the problems of those who deal in tin by offering £50 million. May we have an assurance that those who mine that mineral will receive a similar sum?

Mr. Morrison: I am very much aware of the contribution of the tin industry in Cornwall over the years, not least because the hon. Gentleman and my colleagues have made representations to me and brought delegations to see me. As I have said before to the hon. Gentleman, the best action is to sort out the problems so that we know the price at which tin is trading before looking precisely at the problem relating to Cornwall.

Mr. Hicks: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's efforts, but does he agree that the situation has become urgent? It is almost six months since these problems first arose. Will he assure the House that, once the problems of the International Tin Council are resolved, he will give sympathetic consideration to the needs and requirements of the tin industry in Cornwall?

Mr. Morrison: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about the urgency of the problem. I have been saying that for some time—no doubt, boring him. As soon as the problem is sorted out, we must look at what is necessary and at what can be done for Cornwall.

Mr. Williams: Is there not at least a marginal inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's line, in that he cannot decide what help he will give the industry to overcome the crisis until the crisis is over?

Mr. Morrison: With respect, I do not think that there is such an inconsistency. As the right hon. Gentleman is very much aware, many other countries are involved. Until we know precisely the price at which tin settles, it would be incorrect to pre-empt any further discussion.

Mr. Harris: I appreciate the difficulty in which my hon. Friend finds himself. Nevertheless, will he recognise that time is fast running out and that, if we wait much longer, at least one mine—Geevor in my constituency—will no longer exist? We cannot afford to wait much longer.

Mr. Morrison: I am more than aware of the need to get on with this matter. The fact that negotiations have taken place between the council and its creditors is a significant step forward.

National Economic Development Council

Mr. McWilliam: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to attend the National Economic Development Council; and what matters will be discussed.

Mr. Channon: On 5 March. The agenda for the meeting has not yet been agreed.

Mr. McWilliam: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend discussing the motor industry in general and British Leyland in particular at the meeting?

Mr. Channon: It is not for me to set the agenda. That is a matter for the National Economic Development Organisation.

Mr. Hickmet: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity at the meeting to discuss with the NEDC the predatory pricing policies of the Japanese, and especially the use of regional grants, and so on, by the Department of Trade and Industry to enable factories such as the Tokyo Electric Co. which has been undercutting W and T. Avery in the supply of electronic scales, to capture British markets and put 500 people out of work? Should not that issue be addressed by my right hon. Friend at the meeting?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue which deserves discussion. I think that both sides of the House have warmly welcomed inward investment in general. People are anxious to have increased inward investment, although, clearly, not at the expense of the jobs of others.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: As the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear when he attends the NEDC meeting that he believes it is essential for the economy that we have a growing, thriving and successful manufacturing sector? Is he aware that that sector has experienced a steady decline since the Conservatives came to office? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a need for major efforts to be made to ensure that the manufacturing sector makes to the economy the contribution that it must?

Mr. Channon: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said a few moments ago. I gave the figures for manufacturing output and manufacturing exports. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We need a thriving manufacturing sector and a thriving services sector. The hon. Gentleman does not do manufacturing a service when he denigrates what has been achieved in the past few years.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the NEDC the fall of some 7 per cent. in the cost of raw materials and fuel in the past year? Should that not lead through to lower prices of manufactured goods and increase our ability to compete?

Mr. Channon: I very much hope that that is the case. My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take the opportunity to discuss what steps can be taken to oppose and restrict the European method of energy subsidisation in industrial products, as the British glass industry has suffered as a result of extremely unfair competition from Europe?

Mr. Channon: That matter has been raised often with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I shall not set the agenda for the meeting with the NEDC next week, but the House has made some interesting suggestions.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: When my hon. Friend has these meetings, will he canvass the possibility of floating Land Rover on the Birmingham stock exchange and give us a chance?

Mr. Channon: What I certainly think should be done, and what I am determined to work towards, with, I am sure, my hon. Friend, is the best future for Land Rover, for those who work in it and for the company's long-term future.

Mr. John Smith: If the Secretary of State discusses the British motor vehicle industry with the NEDC, will he explain to it and the House why the Government have clearly rejected the option of standing four square behind British Leyland, Leyland Bus and Land Rover to preserve an independent British capability?

Mr. Channon: As usual, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is overstating the case. The House knows very well that the Government have poured £1·2 billion into Leyland over the years, with guarantees of more than £1·8 billion still available. We should now work together for a viable car industry. That is in the general interest.

Mr. Wilson: Has the Secretary of State noticed that, as part of the merger mania, a series of major attacks have been made on Scottish companies such as DCL and Coats Patons? Will he undertake to discuss with the NEDC the development of the Scottish regional economy so that we retain the greatest possible indigenous control of our industry?

Mr. Channon: The regional economy of Scotland is no doubt a suitable subject for the NEDC. I do not believe that individual takeovers are an appropriate subject, however, although I shall no doubt get advice in due course from the Director General of Fair Trading about the companies to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Lightbown: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the profit or loss made by the British Steel Corporation in 1979–80 and in 1984–85, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): Excluding the costs of the miners' strike, the corporation made a profit in 1984–85, after interest and before exceptional items, of £40 million. The comparable figure for 1979–80 was a loss of £538 million. This is an impressive recovery, and the strategy announced last August points the way to sustained profitability for the BSC.
I am now able to inform the House that the BSC's external financing limit for 1985–86 is being increased from £360 million to £414 million. This will enable the corporation to implement the decisions announced last August.

Mr. Lightbown: I welcome those figures and congratulate the industry on this remarkable turnround. I also congratulate the management on achieving that without confrontation, but with discussion and negotiation. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be an early return of the industry to the private sector, where it rightly belongs?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government's objective is to return the BSC to the private sector as soon as circumstances allow, not least involving the liability of the corporation. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments—we have them very much in mind.

Mr. MacKenzie: Is the Minister aware that anybody can reduce the losses of any big company simply by shutting down plant? That is how we see it in Scotland. How many jobs do we now have in the BSC as compared with 1979–80?

Mr. Butcher: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about jobs. As for the core activity and the maintenance of the five integrated steel making plants, it is in the corporation's interests to note market conditions and reduce the amount of subsidy necessary to keep those plants and the downstream plants in operation.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decisions taken by the Conservative Government to keep Ravenscraig in production and the results that have been achieved show how wise those decisions were and that all the other decisions taken to close non-productive plants were equally wise, which is why the corporation is now beginning to show profits?

Mr. Butcher: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that my hon. Friend has the Ravenscraig plant much in mind. I hope that he will be encouraged by the three-year projections that have now come forward, as approved by the Commission under the steel regime. The plant's future is more assured and it will benefit, for example, from reallocations of quota, not least the reallocation of quota from Alpha steel.

Mr. Crowther: As the Minister apparently could not answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) about the number of jobs lost, will he take it from me that in the process of returning to profitability the BSC has got rid of 120,000 jobs, few of which have been replaced by other employment in the steel-making areas? Will he guess, if nothing else, how much it costs taxpayers to keep 120,000 people out of work?

Mr. Butcher: Considerations about the steel industry are a function of two parameters. One is the need to reduce taxpayers' exposure to continuing losses, and the other is to continue to supply steel to British industry. Important though the steelworkers' constituency is, there is a much bigger constituency to address—the effect on all engineering industries and steel users of the competitiveness of BSC, its improvement and the prices that it charges its customers.

Mr. Hickmet: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position in 1979 was that the British steel industry was massively overmanned and was producing steel at a cost that exceeded nearly every other competitor? Today, we are producing steel efficiently, effectively and, most important, competitively. The BSC is the lowest-cost producer in Europe. Right hon. and hon. Members must acknowledge that achievement.

Mr. Butcher: I hope the House will celebrate the fact that, as we come to the end of the steel aid regime in Europe, our industry is in the best competitive shape to face true competition. That is a tribute to the BSC's managers and comprehensively vindicates the Government's policy.

Mr. James Hamilton: In view of the closures that are taking place, will the Minister concede that serious consideration should be given to the social consequences and the loss of human dignity? Will he say what the Government intend to do about Ravenscraig, bearing in mind that they have consistently told us that it is a matter for the Government? What do the Government intend to do to give the people of Lanarkshire and Scotland some hope for the future of the steel industry?

Mr. Butcher: One of the more distressing aspects of my job in the Department of Trade and Industry is considering the cases that come through under the ISERBS regime—retraining and the requests for help from various people, which hon. Members bring forward. The Government have maintained an aid regime which helps with training and helps former employees to graft on new skills. That, with the work done by the BSC in closure areas, amounts to living up to the responsibilities that major corporations and Governments have.

Multi-fibre Arrangement

Mr. Lawler: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will report on the European Economic Community Council of Ministers meeting on 27–28 January to decide the Community's negotiating mandate for renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. Waller: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the most recent negotiations towards a renewed multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. Alan Clark: There was a very brief discussion about the multi-fibre arrangement in the Council of Ministers on 27 January. The only decisions taken were to have a substantive discussion at the Council of Ministers meeting on 17–18 February, and to try to agree on a negotiating mandate before the end of February.
Negotiations in the general agreement on tariffs and trade on renewal of the MFA are still at an early stage.
It is too early to say whether we are likely to achieve our objectives as set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 9 May 1985.

Mr. Lawler: As my hon. Friend will be aware, President Reagan has undertaken not to weaken the MFA. When my hon. Friend attends the next meeting, will he impress upon fellow European Ministers the danger that this presents of a large diversion of trade from the United States should the EEC adopt a weaker policy?

Mr. Clark: It is true that the President of the United States actually instructed that negotiations should be

conducted in an aggressive manner. We are still awaiting the completion of the terms of the mandate which goes to the commissioners. My hon. Friend can be certain that a variety of views will be encompassed in the discussions.

Mr. Waller: Does my hon. Friend accept that some potentially lucrative markets for exporters—one thinks of Taiwan, South Korea and Brazil—are very largely closed because of the policies of their Governments? As those countries are substantial textile and clothing exporters to this country, will my hon. Friend make reciprocity one of his leading objectives in the negotiations that are to take place?

Mr. Clark: All negotiations depend on a calculated trade-off of advantage and concession. My hon. Friend has pointed out one of the principal considerations affecting those countries from which textile imports originate. The level to which reciprocity would be to our advantage has to be a matter of calculation and assessment.

Mr. James Lamond: Has the Minister been receiving the same rather plaintive representations from employers in the textile industry as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been receiving? Is he prepared to meet their desire to protect the very fragile recovery that there has been in the textile industry?

Mr. Clark: I would not term the representations as plaintive. There have been well argued and carefully considered representations from a wide variety of employers. They will be taken into account, as will the views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in the debate that we are to have tomorrow.

Mr. Mason: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency over 2,000 people are employed in the textile and carpet industries? All the shop stewards report to me their serious concern at the liberal attitude taken by the Secretary of State. If the Minister for Trade is to conduct the negotiations, and if he is to take the same liberal attitude as the Secretary of State, what assurances can he give to the workers in my textile and carpet industries that they will be better off, if his attitude prevails, when the MFA has been concluded?

Mr. Clark: Some hon. Members may regret it, but it is a fact of life that negotiation is no longer possible bilaterally by the United Kingdom. Negotiations have to be conducted through the Community. The preparation of the mandate is going ahead. Certainly the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents will be very much at the forefront of our considerations.

Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend accept that the British textile industry employs more people than the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation added together? Does he agree that for the success of the surviving mills, despite the decline in the industry, he must negotiate a new MFA at the same time as he is conducting talks on GATT, which will take many years, as he knows?

Mr. Clark: The multi-fibre arrangement negotiations will be completed well before the next round of negotiations on GATT. My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the very large number of people in the United Kingdom who depend for their employment on the textile industry. It is around the half million mark.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has an exceptional reputation for his interest in the national interest of the United Kingdom. Will he assure the House today that he will ensure a robust renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement so that the manufacturing base of this country is not further eroded? I speak not only on behalf of employers but on behalf of trade unions and the work force in the industry when I say that if he fails to do so tens of thousands of people will be out of work. Will he act accordingly in the national interest?

Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the compliment that he paid me. It is not fair to make a general accusation that the entire textile industry depends for its existence on the perpetuation of the MFA in its present form. The industry is extremely efficient and it would not wish to take refuge in a blindly protectionist attitude. None the less, I am aware of the concern expressed from wide circles in the industry. The negotiations will be long and complex and many different views will be expressed from within the Community in putting the mandate together. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall take heed of what he says and of the wide variety of representations that I have received on this subject.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister accept that during the lifetime of the existing MFA more than 2,000 jobs in the British textile and clothing industries have been lost, and that that vividly illustrates the need for a strong and effective renewed MFA? Does he also accept that there are important investment decisions riding on the outcome of the MFA negotiations? If he will not accept that from me, will he accept it from the chief executive of Vantona Viyella, who said recently that his company had invested £50 million in the past two years and was prepared to spend more, but that the decision rested on the outcome of the MFA renegotiations? Will he also understand that what he has said will be seen as extremely disturbing throughout many constituencies, represented in some cases by the Minister's hon. Friends, and that if the British textile and clothing industries—[Interruption]—sold out by—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very unfair to ask such a long question, which denies other hon. Members a chance to speak.

Mr. Clark: I think that the House showed its impatience with the hon. Member's question by making three quarters of it inaudible. Every job loss is regrettable, but if he really regards the loss of 2,000 jobs out of a work force of 500,000 as being significant—

Mr. Alan Williams: Two thousand a month.

Mr. Clark: The fact is that the industry is efficient and its exports to certain markets, for example, Japan, have increased at a fast rate. It is not correct to regard the whole industry as requiring perpetual protection under the mechanism of the MFA. Our business is to ensure that when the MFA is renewed, it is done on the basis of hardheaded negotiation, first in the Community and then in the countries concerned, to the mutual advantage of both.

Mr. O'Brien: In view of the Minister's replies, does he agree that it is time that Her Majesty's Government took a hard line in the negotiations in the EEC on trade arrangements, as the softly softly approach will hinder or

damage the MFA, which will mean a further loss of jobs? Is not the price of the softly softly approach too great for the textile industry?

Mr. Clark: I reject the idea that negotiations can be conducted on either hard line or softly softly terms. They are a matter of balance, and what has to be weighed is reciprocal merit of advantage and concessions.

Manufactured Goods

Mr. Michie: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will indicate the nature and size of the current deficit in the balance of trade in manufactured goods.

Mr. Channon: Within the overall surplus on the current account of £3·5 billion in 1985, there was a deficit on manufactures of £3·1 million.

Mr. Michie: I represent a Sheffield constituency which is famous for its manufactured goods, and we view with concern this continuing deficit. Is this what the Government call economic progress? Will the Minister make it clear that the Government's present policy is not taking us down the road of economic recovery with prosperity round the corner, but is running our manufacturing industry into the ground and making sure that many of our workers are living shorter lives, through worry and depression? The decent thing for the Minister to do is to get out of office and so give us a chance to stop being a country with nothing more than a chain of American-owned hamburger stalls.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates. Manufacturing industrial output is well into its fifth year of growth. Continuing growth is indicated by recent forecasts. Fixed investment in manufacturing for the first three quarters of 1985 is 8 per cent. higher than a year ago and, as I said, manufacturing exports, for example, are at record levels in volume and value.

Mr. Forth: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that manufacturing investment is up, productivity is up, output is up and exports are up? Does he not find great encouragement from those facts, and will he therefore condemn the constant pessimism from the Opposition and reaffirm the optimism that we have in the manufacturing sector?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right on all those points. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not believe him because he does not want to believe the facts.

Mr. Skinner: Of course I do not. They do not believe in the right hon. Gentleman outside.

Mr. Channon: The Opposition want to have only a gloomy story. They do not like good news, and my hon. Friend has told us what the good news is.

Mr. John Smith: Will the Secretary of State accept that the facts point out that the Government inherited a substantial surplus in the balance of trade of manufactured goods and now we have a huge deficit? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why that has occurred under the Government's economic management and what they intend to do to put it right? Will he please answer both parts of the question?

Mr. Channon: The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that manufacturing output is up and has been up for 1984 and 1985. It is well up on its trough in 1981. Manufacturing investment is substantially up, non-oil export volume is substantially up, the real rate of return for manufacturing companies is up and manufacturing productivity is also substantially up. Let us stop all the moaning that we hear from the Opposition.

Westland plc

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to facilitate a decision by the board of Westland plc about the future structure and ownership of the company; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The Government's aim throughout has been to enable the Westland's board to decide what reconstruction of the company to recommend to shareholders based on a choice between viable alternative proposals and in which the shareholders could take the final decision.

Mr. Dykes: What is the Government's reaction to today's developments at the meeting?

Mr. Pattie: I understand that a motion to adjourn the extraordinary general meeting of the company has been proposed and defeated and that the meeting is still going on. My understanding is that the result of the substantive motion will not be known until later this afternoon.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Has the Minister learnt any lessons from the Westland affair?

Mr. Pattie: I think that all of us are in a position to learn about any affair.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend accept that the events of this morning at the extraordinary general meeting made it clear, as never before, that some people seem to be interested only in wrecking a solution to the Westland crisis? Will he do all that he can to appeal to all those involved, particularly competitors, to do all in their power to ensure that Westland recovers well, prospers and goes from strength to strength?

Mr. Pattie: The final part of my hon. Friend's question is exactly what we would wish Westland to achieve. I think that all of us in the House believe that the sooner the Westland company can get on with the reconstruction and the business of building helicopters, the better it will be.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Minister think that it is appropriate that the future of such an important company, in terms of its industrial and defence consequences, should be decided by a series of doubtful financial wheelings and dealings and, in the event, by anonymous Swiss bank nominees?

Mr. Pattie: I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's construction. None of the dealings are anonymous. As he well knows, powers exist for a company to ascertain the names of those who own shares. There is no reason why the extraordinary general meeting should not reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Sterling Metals (Nuneaton)

Mr. Park: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from Sterling Metals of Nuneaton and its existing customers about the consequences of the closure of its iron foundry on imports of components currently supplied by Sterling Metals.

Mr. Peter Morrison: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry has been notified about the impending closure of the Sterling Metals iron foundry. No representations have been received either from the company or its customers about consequential effects upon the import of components, although I have had a letter from the hon. Gentleman on that matter.

Mr. Park: Is the Minister aware that the major reason for the closure is unfair competition from Spain and Brazil? If so, what action has he taken?

Mr. Morrison: I do not entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. I have heard such allegations and my Department, through the Commission, would take up that point if it could be substantiated.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: Will my hon. Friend instigate an investigation into the allegations, especially as they are not only of recent date? Would it not be worth pursuing the matter at a departmental level? The possible threat is not only to this company, but to other British foundries.

Mr. Morrison: I am quite happy to do what my hon. Friend has suggested, and will investigate the matter again. He will appreciate that now that Spain has joined the European Community, the position has changed radically.

Home Taping

Mr. Greg Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the effects on the recording industry of home taping; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Pattie: The record industry has made many representations expressing its concerns about the effects of home taping. It submitted a formal response to the 1985 Green Paper "The Recording and Rental of Audio and Video Copyright Material"—Cmnd. 9445—and has reiterated its concerns since then.

Mr. Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that every day millions of people in this country copy music from records, pre-recorded tapes and the radio? Is he further aware that nine of every 10 tapes sold are used for that purpose? Is that not a breach of copyright? Is it not disgraceful that authors, composers and artists receive no benefit from that activity? Will my hon. Friend consider introducing a royalty levy on the sale of blank tapes?

Mr. Pattie: It is precisely the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and others that are being weighed carefully in the preparation of the Government's White Paper on this subject.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the industry makes an enormous contribution to the British economy and, indeed, is the most successful of its kind in the world? When will he make an announcement on this matter?

Mr. Pattie: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comment about the importance of the industry to the United Kingdom. The White Paper will be published in the near future, perhaps shortly after Easter.

Mr. Richard Page: Is it not true that certain continental countries were faced with exactly the same problem, but overcame it by the introduction of a levy on blank tapes?

Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend is correct.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not only a matter of levy, but involves the whole question of copyright? When will his Department tackle that minefield, which so badly needs tackling, not only in this respect, but in many other areas?

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that a White Paper on the whole subject of intellectual property, innovation and copyright is in an advanced state of preparation.

Mr. Watts: Could not the recording industry do much to combat the problem of home taping by not allowing its music to be broadcast? Is it not the case, however, that it benefits from free advertising? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the concern in many quarters, especially among those providing talking newspapers for the blind, about the possible outcome of a levy on blank tapes on the valuable service that they provide?

Mr. Pattie: The interests of the blind will be most carefully considered and safeguarded should any proposals be put forward along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Trade Marks

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the registration as trade marks of commonly used national emblems.

Mr. Pattie: The Government have no intention of introducing legislation to amend the law on that subject.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that that answer will be greeted with great disappointment north of the border? Is he aware that The Scotch House has recently acquired the exclusive patent rights to the use of the lion rampant, which is an insignia that has been used for many years by a wide range of knitwear manufacturers in Scotland? Will he reconsider the decision and try to restore the lion rampant to the public domain?

Mr. Pattie: The position is not as the hon. Gentleman describes. The Scotch House has registered a lion as its trade mark, but it is not, as has been suggested in some quarters, the lion of Scotland. The lion of Scotland is a national emblem and cannot be registered as a trade mark. The Scotch House has simply registered a lion as a trade mark. Many lions exist in different forms. I happen to have here many examples of different lions. It is open to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the companies involved to submit other designs—

Mr. John Smith: Other lions.

Mr. Pattie: Provided that the test of distinctiveness can be satisfied, that mark would also be registered.

Mr. Marlow: Would it not be a good idea if cars assembled within the United Kingdom were stamped with the Union Jack? Would that not help the general public, who are desperately keen to buy British cars?

Mr. Pattie: I am sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion will be noted in the appropriate quarters.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that while he is sitting on his backside in the Department, many products carrying the Union Jack mark are being dumped on our shores and they are not even made here? I want to know what he is going to do about it.

Mr. Pattie: I do not believe that that arises out a question about the lion of Scotland, but it is an important issue and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will table a question about the matter next time.

Multi-fibre Arrangement

Mr. Terry Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations on the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Negotiations in the GATT on renewal of the MFA are still at an early stage, and discussions in the Community on a mandate for the negotiations are continuing. It is too early to say whether we are likely to achieve our objectives as described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 9 May 1985, but the Community has agreed that an extension of the MFA is needed.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that close on £2 billion has been invested by the industry during the past 10 years and that, compared with foreign competitors, it has kept prices at a reasonable level? Is that not enough to suggest to the Minister that he should go out with all guns blazing and come back to the House with a strengthened multi-fibre arrangement?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman heard what my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade had to say earlier. My hon. Friend is a good negotiator. He will be balancing the advantages and taking serious account of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. John Townend: Is my hon. Friend aware that even efficient clothing producers, such as Dewhurst in my constituency, which supplies Marks and Spencers, believe that it is vital for their continued prosperity that the MFA should be renewed on the same basis as the present arrangement?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the efficiency of Dewhurst in my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I will take account of what he has said.

Mr. Fatchett: On a recent visit to Leeds the Minister said that he would give proper protection to the Leeds clothing industry against the importation of men's cheap suits. What did he mean by proper protection?

Mr. Morrison: I believe that it was men's trousers. In consultation with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, I have been considering the whole matter with the British Clothing Industries Association. If action must be taken, it will be.

Land Rover

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to privatise the Land Rover division of British Leyland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Discussions are in progress between BL and General Motors with the aim of creating an internationally competitive United Kingdom commercial vehicle industry. These talks cover Leyland Trucks, Land Rover, Freight Rover and certain related overseas companies.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As Jaguar has flourished in the private sector, why has my hon. Friend not pursued a similar course with Land Rover? What can Land Rover gain from General Motors that could not be achieved by privatisation in a British market?

Mr. Morrison: Obviously my right hon. Friend and I and the whole of the BL board must carefully take into account the prospects for the future of Land Rover when it goes into the hands of the private sector. The board believes that the prospects for Land Rover and Range Rover will be greatly enhanced if, subject to the conditions that my right hon. Friend announced in the House last week, they team up with General Motors.

Mr. Terry Davis: As no one in the senior management of British Leyland will admit to being involved in the discussions, will the Minister name the members of the BL board who are involved in trying to sell off the British motor industry?

Mr. Morrison: I am amazed at that question. I do not know the names of all the people involved. There have

been negotiations at many levels—technical, commercial and industrial. Several people have been involved in the negotiations across the board.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about negotiations taking place between General Motors and Leyland Truck and the involvement of Land Rover.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Discussions are in progress between BL and General Motors with the aim of creating an internationally competitive United Kingdom commercial vehicle industry.

Mr. Taylor: As my hon. Friend is considering the options, will he include among them a management buyout and accept the importance of a significant involvement of employees of the company in that scheme?

Mr. Morrison: That will initially be a matter for the BL board. Certainly as regards the future of Land Rover and Range Rover, it is important that any deal that they come to is a deal that they and the Government consider to be the best for enhancing their prospects and the prospects of my hon. Friend's constituency and the thousands of his constituents who work there.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Has General Motors made the inclusion of the Land Rover division of British Leyland a condition of its acquisition of that division? If not, why will the hon. Gentleman not listen to the views of the management and unions at Land Rover and to the view of both sides of the House and consider a future for Land Rover outside the deal with General Motors?

Mr. Morrison: At this stage, General Motors has not put forward any formal proposition. It would be fair to say that General Motors is looking at the three constituent parts about which I have already told the House.

Under-age Girls (Contraception)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidelines his Department proposes to issue following the GMC's advice to doctors regarding the circumstances in which they involve the parents of under-16-year-old patients when prescribing contraceptives.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): As the House is aware, the existing DHSS guidance on this issue is being revised to take account of the Law Lords' judgments and the wide range of views expressed on the matter. The revised guidance will advise those doctors and others concerned about the considerations that they need to have in mind when giving contraceptive advice or treatment to under-16-year-olds. I will, of course, also take into account the new guidance approved by the General Medical Council yesterday. I hope to issue the revised DHSS guidance shortly.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to issuing the guidance quickly? I believe that powers must be available to doctors, to involve parents in exceptional circumstances, but there is worry and anxiety in the BMA, and a hiatus has been caused by the GMC ruling. Will the right hon. Gentleman end that hiatus, because it is in no one's interest that girls of 16 and under should continue to be exposed to the risk of pregnancy?

Mr. Hayhoe: The GMC is an independent statutory body, for which the Government are not accountable in any way. Therefore, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the advice that it gives to the medical profession. I have said that I hope to issue the DHSS guidance shortly.

Dame Jill Knight: What does my right hon. Friend make of the statement of the president of the GMC that he still hopes that the vast majority of doctors will not inform parents? When my right hon. Friend is considering guidelines, will he bear in mind the weight of evidence that adverse medical effects can be present among young girls, particularly if they are receiving other medical treatment from their doctors? Will he insist that doctors at least tell GPs?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am not aware of the statement to which my hon. Friend refers. I hope that no one in the House, or outside, would seek to undermine or diminish parental responsibility in these matters in any way.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Minister be very clear when he is writing his guidelines that if 16-year-olds are asked by the doctor concerned whether they want their parents told, and they make it clear that they do not, it is essential that their confidentiality should be respected? If that is not so, and if the girls are not told that, we shall get more and more illegitimate children through there being no faith in the confidentiality of the consultation.

Mr. Hayhoe: The position is that confidentiality must be for the individual doctor, guided by the advice of the General Medical Council.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend not accept that it is in the best interests of the underage girl that parental responsibility and family stability

should be fostered by the new guidelines which he will introduce? Does he not agree that doctors should be under an obligation to tell the parents of girls who are being placed upon the pill that that is happening, rather than having that right conferred upon them? This will in itself give proper protection to all girls. Is that not what we should be seeking to do?

Mr. Hayhoe: I think it very important that nothing is done to diminish or undermine parental responsibility in this matter.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Is the Minister confident that the revised guidance will serve to reduce the appalling number of teenage pregnancies?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am concerned at the number of unwanted teenage pregnancies and the number of abortions. I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will be concerned about the numbers, and I would not wish the guidance which is given by my Department to make matters worse. The intention of the guidance is to take account of the Law Lords' judgment on this matter, and to take into account the social and moral concern that has been widely expressed on this issue.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Does my hon. Friend not think that this institutionalisation of a breach of confidentiality on a subjective judgment is the thin end of the wedge for general practitioners and medical practitioners? Young girls who go to them are socially responsible. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said, it has nothing to do with parents whether there are adverse or non-adverse effects on children or young people who are prescribed contraceptives; it is a matter of clinical judgment. That is not affected by whether parents know or do not know.

Mr. Hayhoe: I received only this morning the revised guidance which the General Medical Council approved yesterday and have not had time to give it the careful consideration which it deserves. I believe in these matters that careful consideration is much preferred to instant comment.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that many of us in the Life lobby have found the position of Victoria Gillick very hard to stomach, and that that is one of the issues which has divided many of us? Is he aware that the General Medical Council's guidance note may be an excellent compromise?

Mr. Hayhoe: Rather than comment upon the guidance which was approved by the GMC yesterday, I believe that it would be right for me to give it careful consideration, and I shall take it into account along with the other matters that I have described before I issue the revised DHSS guidance, which I hope to do shortly.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are hundreds of thousands of caring parents who wish to know what will be the position of 13 and 14-year-old children in the revised guidelines? At that stage in their lives they need all the love and care of a secure home and the knowledge that their families care.

Mr. Hayhoe: The stability of family relationships and parental responsibility are matters that we must all take fully into account.

Ms. Jo Richardson: Is the Minister aware that many young girls consult their parents but that many find that they cannot? I echo the outrage of the British Medical Association at the confusion which the General Medical Council's guidelines will cause for doctors and their patients. The guidelines make the situation worse than it was before Mrs. Gillick brought her case. They provide virtually a licence for doctors to do as they like.
Will the Minister clarify the fact that a young girl seeking advice on contraception will have to talk to her doctor before she knows whether he will inform her parents? Surely this uncertainty will mean that she will not consult him at all. She will not do so unless she has some sort of assurance beforehand. What does the Minister propose to do—we look forward to receiving his guidelines—to improve the service for young people to avoid the unwanted pregnancies to which he referred? In 1983—the most recent year for which he has given me figures—over half of these unwanted pregnancies were terminated.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Tell them not do it.

Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad that the hon. Lady is awaiting the revised guidance, which I shall be issuing after having given careful consideration to the guidance issued and approved by the General Medical Council yesterday.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the very thought that parents might be informed by the doctor will be a substantial deterrent to girls indulging in under-age sex? Given the extremely alarming figures that are now emerging, and which the House debated only recently, of cervical cancer among the very young, would it not be very desirable to have this deterrent in situ?

Mr. Hayhoe: I note what my hon. Friend has said, as I have noted the remarks of hon. Members in all parts of the House on this important issue. I shall take all views into account in preparing the revised guidance that I hope to issue shortly.

Immigration (Members' Representations)

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday, Mr. Speaker, following a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who had been contacted by a journalist before 1 pm about a written answer that it was expected would be released that day, you said during the ensuing exchanges:
I would deprecate the giving of a written answer to the press before it has been given to the hon. Member concerned. That is clearly in breach of our conventions."—[Official Report, 11 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 793.]
A written answer was provided yesterday, by the Home Secretary and not by the Minister of State. It was not a casual written answer, for it had attached to it a five-page document of 19 paragraphs setting out completely a new policy to be folowed by the Home Secretary. The contents of the document included a number of matters which the journalist who had spoken on the telephone to my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood had told her would be included in the written answer.
There seem to be only two alternative possibilities, both of which are discreditable. One is that there was a leak from the Home Office to the press. The second possibility is that the Home Office—this must have been via the Home Secretary—deliberately committed what you described yesterday, Mr. Speaker, as a "breach of our conventions", which you deprecated, and supplied a written answer to a journalist two and a half hours before it was the property of Parliament.
As the Leader of the House responded, towards the end of those exchanges, by saying that he would draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the allegations, and as the Opposition have sought today from the Home Secretary a statement to the House of Commons—which is the proper way in which a major new statement of policy ought to be made—I ask you, Mr. Speaker, firstly to give us your advice about what we can do in future when there is a breach of our conventions and secondly to assist us in obtaining a response from the Leader of the House, following the undertaking that he gave yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday in the column of Hansard that was mentioned by the right hon. Member.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not this depend upon whether or not the document was embargoed?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I know nothing about that. I repeat to the House what I said yesterday: that it is a bad practice for members of the press, or for anyone else, for that matter, to be given information before Members of this House.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that a press officer at the Home Office was rung up yesterday morning and asked about the question


on the Order Paper. The questioner was told that an answer was to be given that afternoon. No answer was given to the journalist.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now we are going down a track that we hit on Friday. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) quite rightly drew to my attention the fact that we are getting, in effect, statements on points of order. Since that was, in effect, a statement, I shall have to treat it as such.

Mr. Kaufman: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that as the answer was given in the name of the Home Secretary, not the Minister of State, it would have been proper for the Home Secretary to come to the House to make a statement this afternoon and not to send his junior Minister? May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] Well, may I put it to the Minister that this journalist, to whom his press officer spoke, must have been a person of amazing invention and telepathic ability. After having, apparently, only been told by the Home Office press officer that an answer would be given, he was able to conjure out of his imagination a good deal of the content of the answer.
It was passed by the journalist to my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood because the journalist wished to have my hon. Friend's comments. They were then passed by my hon. Friend to me, which meant that I was in possession of that information, too. This is a very curious way of keeping Parliament informed. After the sieve-like nature of Downing street and Government Departments in the last few weeks, will the Minister pursue the matter of a leak by a press officer which seems, like the one from Miss Collette Bowe and Mr. Bernard Ingham, to have been an authorised leak?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I shall have to treat this as a statement, so I cannot answer that question.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that I can add anything to what I have already said. I have told the House that my understanding is that this journalist rang up the Home Office. I have also told the House my understanding of what he was told. I cannot take the matter any further.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I add one further matter for correction in the internal workings of the Home Office? When we debated last night the Home Office precept order for the police—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman says must relate to the Minister of State's response.

Mr. Hughes: It does relate to it. We were told by the Minister of State, who is on the Treasury Bench, that earlier that day there had been an announcement—not to this House—of an increase in the police grant from 50 per cent. to 51 per cent. and of an increase in rate support grant of £22 million. Is it Home Office policy now to pre-empt matters to be announced in the House by a few hours through procedures other than those of the House—statement or question? If that is so, people outside the House will yet again be given information before the

House about material which is highly relevant and which is about to be debated in the House. Hon. Members may well not know the information that the Government have let into the public domain from a Department when it is relevant first to the Order Paper.

Mr. Waddington: That matter has nothing whatsoever to do with the question that was addressed to me and the matter with which I was dealing. I shall communicate to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this absolutely necessary? This morning we were not advised that there would be a statement. It is not a statement, with respect, but a point of order. Is it necessary for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to answer questions?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present last week when, on two occasions, points of order were used as a basis for a sort of statement. After the events of last Friday I said that if this happened again, I would have to treat it as a statement, and I am afraid that I must do that.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that when we are to have a statement we need to be informed in advance, so that we can question Ministers? Since there has been no information in advance, surely these proceedings are out of order?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the normal practice. It is unwise of Ministers to answer points of order with a statement because that means that hon. Members are not given the opportunity to question them properly.

Mr. John Watts: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the substance of the matter is of far more interest to hon. Members, who must deal with large numbers of immigration cases, than the method of disclosure? Will he accept that the proposals of our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reflect such basic common sense that anyone of reasonable intelligence who is well-informed could have put them together? They are certainly welcome to me and, I suspect, to my right hon. and hon. Friends who must operate these procedures.

Mr. Waddington: The answer is yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Robert Atkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the point of order is not on the same subject because—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Robert Atkins.

Mr. Atkins: Surely it was not my hon. and learned Friend the Minister who raised a point of order, as you suggested, but the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)?

Mr. Speaker: I did not say that. I said that we were tending to get into the bad habit of using points of order to obtain statements.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Since the Minister in effect answered the point of order and as I said on Friday that if that happened again, I would have to treat it as a statement, I must do so.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This wastes a great deal of time. I call Mrs. Kellett-Bowman.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance because I was hoping to raise a point about questions at the conclusion of Question Time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady would do it then.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If these occasions arise in future, is it necessary for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to answer the questions put to him? He may want to answer them, but is he required to do so? Can you rule on that for the future? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for the way in which Ministers answer questions, but I am responsible for keeping to the rules of the House. If, in effect, statements are made on a point of order, they must be treated as statements. I hope that it may not happen often. I call Ms. Clare Short.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we are now having a statement, could you direct that the monitors show that we are having a statement from the Home Office on immigration rules, for the benefit of hon. Members who are not in the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: I suppose that that is in order.

Ms. Clare Short: This is a serious matter and it has been going on for some time. It started with the Minister making wild allegations at Question Time and was followed by his Department leaking to the Daily Telegraph private letters that I had written to constituents, and information about representations that various hon. Members had made on behalf of their constituents. That must be a breach of the Official Secrets Act. All this has been going on, but we have had no chance to debate or discuss it in the House.
The Minister then came up with a series of proposals to deal with what he alleged was an abuse. We do not accept that it was an abuse, yet we have never had a chance to say so. The Minister made a statement through a written answer—that was inappropriate—and journalists were told in advance of the broad contents of the proposal, although I do not believe that they had the whole answer. It is proposed that, in future, Members of Parliament will have to start acting like immigration officers, ringing Heathrow airport. and so on to get the full story.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Short: No, I shall not. The journalist concerned knew all this. He had approached me for a comment. I was unable to make one, having been—[Interruption.] Seriously, this cannot be a reasonable way of proceeding in the House. The Leader of the House should look at this as an example of hon. Members being put into a position where they are not allowed to answer properly for themselves. He should give undertakings that this use of a written answer for leaking to the press will not happen again.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members: Let the Minister answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Minister want to answer?

Mr. Waddington: I did not hear a question addressed to me.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order. It is a question.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am asking for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Will you enlighten me? A Member such as myself who wishes to raise a point during questions is not permitted to do so. You prefer the matter to be put at the end of Question Time. Will you be kind enough to tell me, in view of today's events, how I can raise with you the point that Opposition Members' questions were far too long and suggest that, as a retaliatory measure, you call two Conservative Members to one Opposition Member?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is always very helpful. I have already told her that I shall call her point of order after this exchange. She is second in the queue.

Ms. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This is an Opposition day.

Ms. Short: I am saying that the Minister misled the House. He said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No right hon. or hon. Member misleads the House.

Ms. Short: Perhaps inadvertently; but the words he uttered in the point of order, which has now become a statement, gave information to hon. Members about what was said to the journalist in question which was not correct. That is the point I am putting. It is an extremely serious point. I should have thought that the Minister would want to answer it.

Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Lady is now putting a question to me, let me state absolutely categorically that no answer to no parliamentary question was given to that journalist.

Mr. Max Madden: The draft regulations which the Government announced yesterday by means of a written answer affect the rights of Members of both Houses of Parliament. Will the Minister of State confirm that there has been no consultation between the Government and the parties represented in the House?


Will he, therefore, in the absence of proper consultation, withdraw the draft regulations to enable consultation to take place?
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that an internal inquiry is taking place in the Home Office into the apparent breach of the Official Secrets Act 1911 by the management of the immigration service or officials in his department in disclosing information to the Daily Telegraph about the representations of Members of Parliament on immigration matters which was published on 3 December? Has that inquiry been completed? If not, will the hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the matters that have been raised through today's statement are investigated in the same inquiry?

Mr. Waddington: The draft guidelines have been published so that there can be consultation. I have written to the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members inviting them to give their comments. That is obviously, I submit, the correct way to proceed. The other matter raised by the hon. Gentleman has nothing to do with the question that has been raised this afternoon.

Mr. Dickens: Does the Minister accept that the House is suffering this afternoon from a dose of leakitis brought about by a dose of strong helicopteritis a few weeks ago? Will the Minister confirm that there is a close working relationship between the press in the House of Commons, hon. Members, Ministers and shadow Ministers? Therefore, is it not right for the press, which does its job lawfully and properly, at times to deduce and make assumptions about what might be in a Minister's mind? Is this not fair work by the lobby correspondents? What is all this fuss about?

Mr. Waddington: I really do not know. I raised the matter this afternoon because, under the guise of a point of order, a serious allegation was made. I replied to that allegation and said that it was absolute nonsense.

Mr. Kaufman: Does not the Minister agree that this discreditable shambles in which he has been involved could have been avoided if the Government had responded to today's formal request from the Opposition for a formal, properly made statement which hon. Members would have known about and on which they could have asked questions? We are not satisfied with the Minister's evasive answer about the leak. I make it absolutely clear to him that there is no way in which Opposition Members will agree in future to make representations to a civil servant who is responsible to the Minister rather than to the Minister.

Mr. Waddington: I am surprised, after the time the right hon. Gentleman has taken up this afternoon, that he should prolong proceedings any further. He started out with a point of order in which he must have known there was no substance. It followed a point of order he made yesterday and to which I understand a detailed reply was given through the usual channels. Therefore he knew, before he raised the matter this afternoon, that there was no substance in it.

Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order—Mrs. Kellett-Bowman.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, what happens when Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) ask long questions, thus precluding other hon. Members from doing so. Would it not be possible and salutary in such circumstances to call two hon. Members on the opposite side in succession to those who have erred?

Mr. Speaker: That is not possible, but I balance it out in different ways. If the hon. Lady looks at Hansard tomorrow she will see that I did that.

Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take Mr. Winnick.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am still waiting to get in on the statement.

Mr. David Winnick: Since the Minister has seen fit to criticise your ruling, Mr. Speaker, allowing the statement to be made, may I ask whether there are not two separate and unrelated issues here? One important matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to the leak. The other matter is equally important and, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, concerns you as a constituency Member as much as it does the rest of us. What is proposed will undoubtedly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue the statement on a point of order, because that would get us into serious trouble.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No. This is an Opposition day and we are eating into it. The hon. Gentleman must reserve what he wishes to say on this matter until we have a debate, and that goes for the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).

Mr. Winnick: On this point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to continue the questions on the statement. I am sorry that I was not able to call him, but he will have to find another way of being called. Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Skinner: Today we have witnessed a little bit of history-making, in the sense that during the past week you, Mr. Speaker, quite properly said that the Government had twice used a point of order to make a statement. The Government would deny that, of course, but that is what it looked like.
You have done the House a service, Mr. Speaker, by telling the Government that when they do this a third time the matter must be debated properly in the House. It would appear from the Minister's last remark that the Government are not taking kindly to points of order being turned into statements.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Too right.

Mr. Skinner: We on the Opposition Benches welcome that, even though some of us did not get called. In view of the current misunderstandings that are taking place on the Government Benches, the leaks and all the rest of it, we welcome the fact that, when this takes place in the future, we shall have an opportunity to do the same to bring the Government to heel.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we need to pursue this. The hon. Gentleman raised this matter twice last week and I think he was entirely correct.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes?

Mr. Faulds: I had hoped to get in on the statement to ask a question which would have made some sense. As we have not heard—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not seek to ask a question now.

Mr. Faulds: No, I was simply trying to make the point that some of us try to get in on questions and do not abuse points of order. I am now forced to use a point of order. It is quite clear that the exchanges on these issues have been extremely unsatisfactory. Can we now have an assurance that the Home Secretary will come to the Dispatch Box, but not on a point of order, to make a statement to the House so that these matters can be properly pursued?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 28 FEBRUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Sir William van Straubenzee
Mr. Andrew Rowe
Mr. Gary Waller

Protection of Animals Act 1911 (Amendment)

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend sections l and 15 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and for connected purposes.
It is somewhat ironic to introduce today's Bill as a ten-minute Bill when on Monday the House will debate and pass a Bill which will protect animals subject to research procedures in laboratories. We seek to protect those animals because we have a high regard for their dignity. These animals should not be abused even on occasions when lives are being saved and remedies are found for many dangerous diseases that afflict us.
My Bill seeks to protect animals which are not used for such a noble purpose but those whose lives are put at risk for the selfish pleasure of a privileged few. They seek to delight in the idea that a hare should be the subject of a tug of war between two greyhounds, that a fox should be pursued for miles until exhausted and is turned at bay to be ripped to pieces by hounds, or that a stag should be chased to the point of exhaustion when it either rushes into the sea trying to save itself and drowns or is savaged by a pack of hounds. Those of us who support the Bill are of the opinion that, in our civilised society, there is no justification for continuing these practices.
My Bill would make two small but vital amendments to the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It does not have the range and vision of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) about a fortnight ago, but it tackles a problem which the House can properly put to rights.
The Bill would add to the definition of cruelty thus:
(f) shall hunt with one or more dogs wholly or mainly for the purpose of sport any animal with intent to pursue, take or kill same".
The Bill would also put a responsibility on the occupier or owner of the land not to permit its use for such a purpose. That is common practice in the areas of many progressive shire counties. The Bill would also redefine "animal" so as to cover any mammal. The amended Act would therefore specifically and directly make it an offence to hunt, and cover all animals in the wild.
The 1911 Act protects wild animals to a limited extent. It prohibits as cruel the baiting of an animal in a confined space if it is wild, but it is not considered cruel if the baiting is done in the open. It would be considered cruel to put dogs into a cage with a fox or a hare, but it would not be considered cruel to bring them together in an open field. That cannot be a proper way in which to treat animals.
If amended, the Act would cover cruel and vicious practices involving the use of crossbows, airguns and other methods of snaring, killing and trapping animals. It would make it an offence to allow animals to be hunted or pursued in such a manner.
I realise that there are pressures on the House and that we are eating into Opposition time, but I should like to refer to some public opinion polls on the matter Some people are saying that the issue is political and that we are trying to gain votes. An NOP Market Research Ltd poll of 1983 found that 65 per cent. of respondents disapproved


of fox hunting and that 11 per cent. approved. As for political opinion, 54 per cent. of Conservative voters disapproved and 80 per cent. of Labour voters disapproved. However, 53 per cent. of rural opinion disapproved. On hare coursing, 80 per cent. disapproved, as did,78 per cent. of Conservative voters, 86 per cent. of Labour voters and 77 per cent. of rural opinion. On stag hunting, 81 per cent. disapproved, as did 76 per cent. of Conservative voters, 88 per cent. of Labour voters and 79 per cent. of rural opinion. On hare hunting, 70 per cent. disapproved, as did 62 per cent. of Conservative voters, 79 per cent. of Labour voters and 66 per cent. of rural opinion.
The background shows that this is not a party political matter—it has the support of the overwhelming majority of the population. As for the fight for votes that is going on, any party that could claim 40 per cent. would claim a majority in the House, but here at least 66 per cent. are in favour of legislation to stop these cruel and barbaric practices.
The latest Gallup poll on the subject found that, in some cases, people in county constituencies are more worried about hunting than people in urban ones. Nevertheless, the percentage who opposed hunting was extremely high, and the difference between the county and urban response was only a few per cent. For example, 74 per cent. of respondents in county constituencies disapproved of stag hunting whereas 73 per cent. of urban ones disapproved. For hare coursing, 72 per cent. of county respondents disapproved, while the urban figure was 71 per cent. The roles were reversed in respect of fox hunting—66 per cent. of county respondents disapproving and 68 per cent. of urban ones disapproving. Those figures show that the vast majority of people want Parliament to legislate to abolish these sports.
The interesting feature is that the figures go across all social classes. A majority in every social class disapprove, as do a majority in every age group, especially between 16 and 24. This is a moral issue. Our treatment of wild animals reflects our society. I have never believed that animals are more important than human beings, and I do not exaggerate the importance of their well-being, but I believe that animals, which have been put here for the use of man, should be used sensibly and humanely—not abused for a cheap thrill from a savage and bloody sport.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 0.

Division No. 71]
[4.16 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Ian


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Thomas


Blair, Anthony
Clelland, David Gordon


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Boyes, Roland
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Craigen, J. M.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Crowther, Stan


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunliffe, Lawrence





Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Marek, Dr John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Martin, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dixon, Donald
Maxton, John


Douglas, Dick
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dubs, Alfred
Meadowcroft, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, William


Eadie, Alex
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Nellist, David


Ellis, Raymond
Norris, Steven


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fisher, Mark
Park, George


Flannery, Martin
Parry, Robert


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter


Forrester, John
Prescott, John


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Radice, Giles


George, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gould, Bryan
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Grist, Ian
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Robertson, George


Hancock, Michael
Rogers, Allan


Hardy, Peter
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rowlands, Ted


Haynes, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Heffer, Eric S.
Sheerman, Barry


Hoyle, Douglas
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Soley, Clive


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Stott, Roger


Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Leighton, Ronald
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Litherland, Robert
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Loyden, Edward
Weetch, Ken


McCartney, Hugh
Welsh, Michael


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McGuire, Michael
Winnick, David


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Woodall, Alec


McKelvey, William
Wrigglesworth, Ian


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McNamara, Kevin



McTaggart, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


McWilliam, John
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Madden, Max
Mr. Bob Clay.


Mallon, Seamus



NOES


Nil


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Robin Corbett and



Mr. Harry Cohen.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. J. D. Concannon, Dr. Oonagh McDonald, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Bob Clay, and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT 1911 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Kevin McNamara accordingly presented a Bill to amend sections 1 and 15 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 March and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

Opposition Day

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Economic Policy and Unemployment

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, I announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the callous and irresponsible economic policies pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which consistently promote higher unemployment through record real interest rates, constant cuts in public sector capital spending, the squandering of oil revenues and the destruction of the nation's manufacturing industry.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer should have come to speak in this debate. It is absurd that the most indiscreet Chancellor since the war should use the excuse of pre-Budget purdah as his reason for not doing so. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment, whatever their undoubted talents, are not directly and personally responsible for the policies which have trebled unemployment since the day the Tory party published the "Labour isn't working" poster.
The Chancellor is directly and personally responsible. He is the architect of the medium-term financial strategy. He is one of the few Cabinet Ministers who still believes in it. After the next election, I have no doubt that the two Ministers who will speak today will, when asked about their responsibility for the 3·4 million unemployed, merely answer that they were doing no more than carry out their superior's orders. It is the Chancellor's responsibility to speak. I, and I suspect many hon. Members on both sides of the House, resent the idea that he should duck out.
I wish to put a question about his direct responsibilities to the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment who will reply to the debate. Knowing, as he must, that the Government's reputation has been severely damaged over the past month by their dissembling and equivocation, does he think that the time has once again come to begin the publication of honest employment and unemployment statistics?
I shall explain what I mean, because, with little conviction, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is attempting to look puzzled. The total of registered unemployed has been constantly reduced over the past six years by statistical manipulation. Were we today debating the level of unemployed on the honest pre-1979 basis, the figure about which the Opposition complain would be 3·8 million and not 3·4 million. I shall quote on that subject from The Economist, a publication not noted for its unequivocal support of the Labour party. Ten days ago it stated:
Adult unemployment has trebled under Mrs. Thatcher … Add in school leavers along with those removed by special employment measures and sleight of hand and make some allowance for dole fiddles and the true number of jobless could he nearly 4 million.
Over the manipulation of the figures, the Government once again combine incompetence and subterfuge in equal

measures. They manipulate the unemployment figures to keep down the total but still record the highest level of unemployment in our history.
Claims made about employment and new jobs are even more bogus. The Government boast that 252,000 new jobs have been generated since March 1983. They add, for good measure, the guess that about 400,000 self-employed jobs have also been created during that time.
The Bank of England, like The Economist not an organ noted for its uncritical support of Labour party policies, gives the lie to the claim that 252,000 new jobs have been created. In its December quarterly bulletin, the Bank of England claimed that the economy has not generated 250,000 full-time jobs. It has not even generated 10 per cent. of that number. The economy has generated over the same time 24,000 full-time jobs. That is 24,000 new full-time jobs between the general election and the middle of last year. That is the creation of new jobs at the rate of 890 full-time new jobs each month. At that rate, it will take until 1998 merely to find new jobs for the 130,000 extra men and women who were put out of work last month alone.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The right hon. Gentleman is making a rather serious attack on the integrity of the Department of Employment's statistical service. He knows that the published figures are all produced by the same staff, or their successors, who serviced the Government of which he was a member, and that when changes are made to the figures, the basis upon which the change is made is always published in the Employment Gazette. It is easy to follow the change closely. As he must have prepared this attack with care, will he state which change in the figures he is attacking and what he says has not been publicly stated to make the basis of the change clear?

Mr. Hattersley: The Paymaster General—the second Minister in the Department—says that I am making a serious attack on the Government's statistical service. I am doing no such thing. I am making a serious attack on the integrity of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Minister is correct: I have prepared the case carefully. I have given two examples and I shall give more if he wants. It was when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 'was Secretary of State for Employment that on his instructions the two changes were instituted. The statistical service faithfully carried them out.
It was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who said that the calculations should be made on claimants rather than those registering for work—reducing the total by 170,000. He said that men over 60 should not sign on—reducing the total by 107,000. I do not know why the Minister asked me that question if he thought that I did not know the answer. He must know the answer. He should, if he had the integrity with which I previously credited him, be ashamed to have to administer such a statistical manipulation.
I offer the Minister the suggestion that when he replies he should tell us how he feels about a Government who—I use the phrase again—not with standing the fact that they have manipulated the unemployment statistics, still record the highest unemployment level in our history, since we could, if the Government chose, begin to put Britain


back to work. To achieve that objective, we need a Government who make the reduction of unemployment their highest priority.
The most frightening feature of last week's British Leyland fiasco is the confirmation that the only industrial strategy that the Government possess is to close and to sell. Their free market philosophy has now become such an obsession that they prefer American capitalism and redundancies to British enterprise and jobs. That same obsession has resulted in economic policies based on over-valued sterling and artificially high interest rates. They are two policies which make high unemployment inevitable and industrial collapse certain.
Real interest rates are now higher than at any time in our history. Sterling is valued at a level which subsidises imports and penalises exports. The country must know that. Industry tells it time after time, as it tells the Government, that their exchange rate and interest rate policy is bound to lead to higher and higher unemployment and further and further industrial collapse.
However, as the monthly unemployment figures are published, the Secretary of State for Employment, whoever he may be from time to time, always reacts in the same way. He expresses surprise and disappointment. He then goes on to reject all the policies which might bring down unemployment, basing his rejection on prejudice and ignorance.
I give the House the most recent example of that. On television on 4 February, Lord Young, the Secretary of State for Employment, wheeled out the old chestnut that the policy of public investment in the infrastructure, which everyone except the Cabinet believes is the right answer for this country, has failed abroad and would fail here. He said that public spending has failed to solve economic problems throughout the industrial world.
I shall give the Secretary of State for Employment the facts. I shall send him the figures later today. Between 1979 and 1984—the five most recent years for which figures are available—in America, France, Germany and Japan public expenditure increased faster than it did in Britain and so did gross domestic product. All those countries had a faster rate of growth than we did. All those countries had a slower rise in unemployment, and all except France had a better inflation record. If the Secretary of State correlates all those figures, he will see that there is an absolute relationship between Government capital expenditure and the health and welfare of those four major economies.

Mr. Richard Ryder: When the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with public expenditure, perhaps he could answer one question. Last Sunday the Leader of the Opposition said that extra public expenditure under a possible Labour Government on education, housing and construction would be financed by raising taxes for those earning over £30,000 a year. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us now how much extra revenue that would raise?

Mr. Hattersley: Yes. What is more, so did my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on television on Sunday. The figure he quoted was £3 billion, the amount which that uniquely lucky section of the population have obtained in tax concessions during the lifetime of this Government. They are the only people who have received

the tax cuts about which the Government boasted and which they promised at the last election. The Leader of the Opposition said that it was unreasonable and unjust that only the richest 5 per cent. of the population should have enjoyed tax cuts under the Government and that it was right and necessary that they pay their fair contribution to the national welfare.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to check the transcript, he will see that his right hon. Friend said that the entire Labour programme of reconstruction could be financed by tax increases for those earning over £30,000. Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that it is not the £40 billion that we heard about before, or £20 billion or £10 billion but just £3 billion? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Hattersley: It is neither what I am saying nor what my right hon. Friend said. In a moment I am prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman about some of the other areas from which money could and should come. I am pleased and proud to confirm that my right hon. Friend said that in a decent society one cannot allow the richest 5 per cent. to be the only beneficiaries from tax cuts that were promised to everybody.
I repeat that, in the countries which I have given as examples, higher levels of public expenditure have improved economic performance. Yet our Government stubbornly refuse even to consider reducing unemployment by increasing public sector capital investment. With 400,000 building workers on the dole it is absurd to argue that there is no shortage of demand. I do not advocate, nor have I ever advocated, indiscriminate reflation such as would come from generalised cuts in direct taxation. That would risk an unacceptable increase in inflation and added pressure on the balance of payments. We need directed reflation through capital spending on desperately needed houses, schools, hospitals and roads. The need is there; the manpower is there; the money is there; all that is lacking is the political will.
Creation of jobs by public sector investment is greeted by the Government with a single vacuous, ignorant question which the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) reproduced accurately a moment ago—where is all the money coming from? That was the response of the Paymaster General to the proposals of the Select Committee on Employment for new special employment measures for the long-term unemployed.
Long-term unemployment—that is, men and women who have been out of work for a year or more—totals 1,352,000. There are more long-term unemployed today than the unemployment total when the Government were elected. Perhaps even worse, there are now almost three times as many long-term unemployed men and women as there were during the most deeply damaging period in the inter-war slump. In fact, we are in the deepest depression in our history.
What is the Paymaster General's response to the idea that a modest sum might be spent to reduce long-term unemployment, to alleviate the suffering and to end the hardship involved? In regard to the cost of creating a few jobs he said:
It would be ironic if the cost caused greater damage to business and to the job market in other ways.
If that flaccid comment means anything, it is a complaint about the cost of job creation.


Let me tell the Paymaster General about the cost of unemployment. Every unemployed man or woman costs the country between £6,300 and £7,000 a year in unemployment, housing and other social security benefits and in lost taxes and national insurance payments.
Unemployment costs the country between £21·5 billion and £24 billion a year. The annual cost of increased unemployment since the Tory Government were elected in 1979 is £14 billion. That is more than the entire revenue from North sea oil. Yet in their perversity the Government choose to spend money on maintaining unemployment rather than on creating jobs. As a result of squandering North sea oil income, the Government have assisted in the destruction of the manufacturing base on which the country relies and which we will need more and more as the years go on.

Mr. Richard Holt: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way, but for the last time, as the time available for the debate has been reduced so much.

Mr. Holt: The right hon. Gentleman has made quite a play with statistics. He has just said that each unemployed person costs the country between £6,300 and £7,000. Two days ago the Evening Gazette in Middlesbrough quoted a figure of £5,800 that had been given by the right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary private secretary. Who is correct, the right hon. Gentleman or his PPS?

Mr. Hattersley: If it has to be between my PPS and me, I do not have much doubt about it, particularly since I do not have a PPS, which adds to the mystery. There are two possible sources of error. One is the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette and the other is the hon. Gentleman. All I can tell him is that the figures I quoted come from official statistics. The maximum cost of one man or woman unemployed is as high as £7,000 and may be as low as £6,300. Those figures are from the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Overseas Trade. The hon. Gentleman must continue his argument with other people on other occasions.
Having reminded the House of the cost of unemployment and about the result of the destruction of our manufacturing base, may I remind the Chief Secretary of the vital importance of manufacturing industry to the country in the past and of its absolute necessity in future? North sea oil revenues stand between Britain and something very like literal bankruptcy. North sea oil contributes £11 billion to the revenue. The Chief Secretary will not even dare to speculate on what he would do were he £11 billion worse off. Without the £8 million surplus on the oil account, our balance of payments would be in chronic and serious deficit. Although oil provides only 6 per cent. of our national income, we have become wholly and totally dependent on it for economic security. Yet it is a wasting asset and the Government have made neither plans nor preparations for the day when the oil runs out.
Unless manufacturing industry is revived, we shall not be able to fill the balance of payments gap which oil will leave and which it now masks. The service industries cannot do it. Indeed, they do not even claim that they can do it. The time and resources provided by North sea oil should have been used to put Britain back to work and to reinvest in our manufacturing base. But the money has been squandered.
Notwithstanding that, weak-minded Tory Members such as the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk have only one question to ask when we talk about creating jobs, which is, "Where will the money come from?" That is not even the right question. The right question is, "Where is the money going to?" The answer is clear—the Government's obsession with the City and the City's obsession with the money supply have now combined with the Chancellor's constant failure to hit even his monetary targets to provide a new sort of monetarism. The new one, like the old, has had a disastrous effect on our jobs, manufacturing industry and national resources.
The squandering of our national resources, the dissipation of North sea oil revenues, the flight of capital from Britain, and an exchange rate that does not sustain our domestic industry are the price we pay for the Chancellor's medium-term financial strategy. We now want a medium-term employment and industry strategy which makes the reduction of unemployment its first priority; creates the climate in which new manufacturing industry will flourish; invests in public sector capital; promotes education and training; and forges a partnership with the unions and industry. That strategy will not come, perhaps no strategy will come, from this divided and discredited Government. That strategy and the over-whelming primacy of reducing unemployment will come after the next election, from a Labour Government.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
notes that the Government's success in the battle against inflation has already brought with it nearly five years of soundly based economic growth and rising living standards; applauds the achievement of manufacturing industry in raising productivity to record levels; and welcomes the continuing rise in the number of people in work.
I shall have something to say about all three of these elements.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made some footling fun about the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is not speaking in the debate. It is well known that, in the period shortly before a Budget, the Chancellor does not take part in debates.
I am beginning to wonder how serious the Opposition are about this debate. The only reason for having it is that the right hon. Member is discomfited by the fact that others of his colleagues have been making rather more appearances in the House than he has. Certainly, his colleagues have been plotting and doing their best to prevent him from appearing this afternoon—for what reason, I know not. His speech was heavy on charges, but light on alternative policies.
I happened to hear the right hon. Member on "Desert Island Discs", the one thing I envy him for, because it is an attractive programme. In it, he said that he wars basically a happy man and that even after he had had a dreadful failure, he surprised his staff by being happy the following day. I am afraid that his staff will be surprised tomorrow morning, because he has said nothing this afternoon that will give any comfort to the unemployed or lead anybody to believe that his party could deal with unemployment.
It is well known that Treasury Ministers have certain limitations when they take part in a debate when the


Budget is only a month away. That is when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer traditionally reviews the performance of the economy over the past year and unveils his economic forecast for the year ahead. Traditionally, too, therefore, this is the normal Budget period for Treasury Ministers, so the House will not be expecting me to lift the lid off the Budget box today or to attempt to predict the course of the economy over the coming year. It will, I am sure, understand that I must confine myself to economic performance and policy to date.
Nor will the House expect me to comment on hypothetical future movements in interest and exchange rates. However, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made much of the dangers when North sea oil runs out, and revenues diminish. When the events of the past three months come to be seen in perspective, perhaps their most striking feature will be the dramatic 40 per cent. fall in the price of oil. With all the dire prognostications of the right hon. Gentleman and others about our dependence on that oil and their warnings about what will happen when the oil runs out and its revenues diminish, one would have expected catastrophe to occur. That would certainly have happened given the state of our economy under his Government and the policies being pursued then.
The world perception of that economy was that our industrial competitiveness was constantly being eroded by inflation rates persistently much higher than all the other major industrial nations. Our industries were bloated by overmanning and crippled by restrictive practices that prevented our embracing modern technology and obtaining the benefits of the efficiency and high quality that they brought. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) does not want to listen. Other factors that contributed to our problems were restrictive practices that were shored up and perpetuated by Government legislation and intervention and an economy burdened by excessive Government spending, which led to ever increasing overseas debts. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made much of excessive Government spending today, but it did not lead to higher growth under his Government.
We had an economy in which, alas, the quality and reliability of too many British-made goods, and the failures to deliver on time because of strikes, had become sick overseas jokes. Such a dramatic fall in the oil price as that which we have been experiencing would at that time have led to crisis and another ignominious retreat to the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Does the Chief Secretary agree that part of the reason for the fall in the price of oil is the fact that the Government have no policy towards oil, just as they have no policy for industry? What are the Government's policies towards falling oil prices and production, and to industry? Where are their policies and strategies?

Mr. MacGregor: Oil prices have fallen because they have fallen on international markets. It is not the Government's intention to join OPEC, and we have made that clear. I note from recent letters between the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that it is the Opposition's policy to sustain oil prices at artificially high rates.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: It appears that the Chancellor is incapable of reading letters sent to him. My letters were concerned with talks with OPEC and non-OPEC countries—"talks with" is quite different from joining. If the Minister looks carefully at the correspondence, he will find that the Chancellor's letter sent to me today is absolute rubbish.

Mr. MacGregor: That is absolutely not right, and the House will be able to judge when it sees both letters.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman has made a silly allegation about OPEC. I have the correspondence in front of me. Does he want to withdraw the allegation now or read the letters and withdraw later?

Mr. MacGregor: I have the correspondence in front of me, too. The hon. Lady was clearly arguing for her concern that we should set out an economic strategy in the light of declining oil prices. She was clearly arguing for concern about that fall in oil prices. Perhaps she will confirm whether she wishes to intervene in the current levels of oil prices.

Dr. McDonald: As the right hon. Gentleman has both invited me, and made an absurd allegation, I shall correct him, as I have both the letters in front of me. I do not find any reference in them to joining OPEC. For example, the last paragraph of my letter of 31 January says:
The Government cannot continue to act in splendid isolation. Untrammelled market forces will damage Britain and the world's economy. You should seize the opportunity of splits in OPEC to open up talks first with OPEC and then with non-OPEC producers on a gradual and controlled fall in oil prices which would also stabilise the exchange rate.
There is nothing there about joining OPEC. It is extremely worrying that we have a Chancellor who is capable neither of reading nor of understanding plain correspondence.

Mr. MacGregor: I am delighted to hear confirmation that the hon. Lady also agrees that we should not join OPEC. It is interesting, in that context, that she is still talking about artificially higher oil prices.

Dr. McDonald: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: I will not give way, because this is a short debate and I must get on.
The hon. Lady is talking about a gradual and slow fall in oil prices. The plain fact is that, with the dramatic fall in oil prices which we have seen over recent weeks, there has nevertheless been only a relatively modest adjustment in our exhange rate. The hon. Lady has asked for a gradual and slow fall, so she has been asking for oil prices to be maintained at a higher level. It is extremely interesting, as I have said, that, with the dramatic fall in oil prices, which will have many benefits to our economy, there has been only a relatively modest adjustment in our exchange rate. The fact that that has been so in large part demonstrates the underlying strength of our economy today. It is in stark contrast to the events of 1976 and subsequent years and the then international perception of the state of our economy.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has talked about the destruction of our manufacturing base.

Mr. Jack Straw: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: I must move on, because there is a great deal I want to talk about.
It is recognised that we suffered a heavy shake-out in our industries between 1979 and 1981 as we tackled the problems we inherited, to which I have already referred,


and at a time of major world recession caused primarily by the second oil shock. What matters is the progress we have made since then. It reveals a picture very different from the statistics which the Leader of the Opposition used the other clay. Having weathered that major world recession, our economy has been growing steadily for the past four and a half years. No stop-go here. It has been the longest period of sustained growth for many years. That is very much in manufacturing industry's interests. When figures for 1985 as a whole are published, they will show that we have grown not only faster than all other Community countries but faster than the United States too. Investment has increased at 4 per cent. a year and is now standing at an all-time high.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear.
In the past five years, manufacturing productivity has been rising by a historically powerful 6 per cent. a year on average. Industrial rates of return are the highest for two decades—three times higher than in 1975. The current account of the balance of payments has been in surplus for six successive years and non-oil exports rose by almost 8 per cent. in 1985 to reach record levels for the second year running. That is rebuilding the industrial base which had declined in the 1970s.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: We have a short debate and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants others to get in.
Underlying all that improvement, and of overriding importance, has been our considerable success in slashing the rate of inflation from an average of over 15 per cent., under the Government of which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was a member, to a third of that figure, on average, since the 1983 election. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to inflation at all, although it is of great importance to all manufacturing industry and to rebuilding the industrial base.
All the vague policies which the right hon. Gentleman talked about would undoubtedly have increased the rate of inflation considerably. It is noticeable that the highest rate of inflation recorded since the 1983 election is still lower than any rate achieved when the Labour party was last in power. It is that record on inflation which provides a much more stable base for industry to look ahead with confidence. Living standards have reflected that performance, rising by 13 per cent. in real terms since 1979 for a married man with two children on average earnings, compared with a paltry growth of 0·;5 per cent. between 1974 and 1979.
I shall tackle a little further the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook's charge on manufacturing performance and productivity in recent years. Manufacturing output under the Labour Government declined by 3 per cent. I have already made the case for the problems of the recession in 1981 —we are now talking about a four-year period. Manufacturing output has increased under the Government by 10 per cent. Manufacturing investment under the right hon. Gentleman's Government increased by 6 per cent. Since 1981 it has increased by 19 per cent. and it is on a rising trend.
It is true that the trend on manufacturing imports is more comparable—43 per cent. under the right hon.

Gentleman's Government and 48 per cent. since 1981. That tendency for manufacturing imports to increase is shared by all western industrialised countries. It reflects many factors—not least the adjustment which has had to be made to our balance of payments as a result of the increased production of North sea oil. But fundamental to it must be the fact that consumers in the exercise of their own free choice frequently opt for foreign products, for a whole variety of reasons including quality, design, innovation and so on as weld as price; and that companies, after scouring the market, choose foreign capital goods very frequently for their investment in order themselves to remain competitive or even to survive, for the same reasons.
The answer to that must simply be for British firms to improve the attractiveness of their products in the market place on all those counts. In other words, it is the customer who chooses. I note that, in the many reams of words containing Labour party pronouncements on general policy in the past year, there is much about Government intervention and planning, national investment banks and huge increases in Government spending—all the old tried and failed remedies. There has not been a word about the customer and the key fact that products sell only if they best meet his needs. [Interruption.] I am sorry, there has been one reference in a recent speech.
I believe that our underlying improvement is perhaps best shown in the fact that manufacturing productivity has been growing at three times the rate which the economy displayed under the Opposition. It is important to look at that rate of improvement of productivity. I shall look at that aspect because it is vital, to understanding not only the present difficulties of unemployment but how they will be tackled in the future.
The reason is not hard to find. During the 1970s, in public and private sector alike, we had huge overmanning in terms of units of production in relation to most other western countries, and management either did not dare or was prevented from tackling it. That was clearly unsustainable. Unit labour costs doubled in the second half of the 1970s, so our competitiveness declined. It is little wonder that the rates of return in manufacturing industry were abysmally low and falling against our competitors. Thus, much of the rise in unemployment which we have seen during the 1980s, far from being the consequence of this Government's economic policies, reflects the inability or failure, for whatever reason, of some industries—I am certainly not casting all the blame on them—to tackle those problems in the past, and the refusal of the previous Labour Government to assist them in the task.
Anyone who has visited industrial companies on any scale in the last few years will have seen for himself countless examples of how these problems are now being tackled. Technology is being embraced enthusiastically and we are becoming efficient again. It is happening in the public sector too. In 1979 the British Steel Corporation produced only 131 tonnes of crude steel per employee, 94 tonnes less than West Germany and 170 tonnes less than Italy. In 1984, with a work force one third of the size, they were producing 243 tonnes of steel per employee, closing the gap between them and Italy by more than half and within 10 tonnes of West Germany. At British Airways between 1978–79 and 1984–85, the labour force also fell by a third while productivity rose by a dramatic 57 per cent.


In the coal industry during the last couple of months, the record production rate has been broken five times. Projected sales are likely to approach pre-strike levels in the current financial year, yet the industry now has 24 fewer pits and 33,000 fewer men than at the end of the strike. That impressive improvement in productivity—which has been needed across British industry—with with manpower down by nearly a fifth, has been achieved without any compulsory redundancies.
Now, pretty well bringing up the end of the line, much-needed change is coming to that last bastion of old-fashioned practices, Fleet street. Everyone knows that overmanning, demarcation disputes and resistance to technological change in the national newspaper industry have been an acknowledged scandal for years. Now that the move to Wapping has taken place, Bernard Levin, in a "now at last it can be exposed" article in The Times last week, revealed it all. To cite just one example that he gave—in New York and Sydney it takes six men to work the same printing press that in London, until News International's move to Wapping, used three times that number. That was not creating real employment or keeping up jobs—it was keeping men on a payroll for doing nothing, resisting change, creating gross inefficiencies and losses and eventually destroying firms. It was possible that, as a consequence, work would go abroad.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister has revealed a catalogue of industries where the sacking of staff has apparently resulted in greater efficiency. He did not mention the enormous cost of paying dole to those former employees or the cost of any redundancy pay, if they were lucky enough to get it.
Why has that message not got through to No. 10 Downing street? The cost of running No. 10 under a Labour Prime Minister was £1·2 million, while the latest figure is £3·8 million. Why has there been no rationalisation at No. 10, where expenditure has risen by more than 200 per cent.?

Mr. MacGregor: That demonstrates the pointlessness of giving way.
Roger Eglin, writing in the same newspaper issue in The Sunday Times, put it well. He said:
in a free, competitive society technology is irresistible. Someone will introduce it, even if you resist. Technology does mean that jobs go. The fact that this is only in the short-term and that on the evidence of the American newspaper industry more jobs, and better prosperity, are created in the long-term is not much comfort for those on the receiving end.
I understand that. He continued:
The inevitability of this change is essentially the most basic reason for co-operating with technology.
That gets it right—[Interruption.] These changes have taken place during the past few weeks.
Of course it is painful in the short-term, of course it sometimes creates short-term unemployment—but these sweeping moves to higher productivity and to accepting new technologies that require many fewer people to work them undoubtedly strengthen our economy and must, in the long run, be right for jobs. The Opposition clearly do not understand that.
The same goes for the need for industrial restructuring, of which the west midlands is now the classic example. It has had to take place on a shorter time scale than we would have wished if only it had been tackled earlier. On both

those issues, the speed and the scale of adjustment has had to sharpen because the task was shirked earlier, so the effect on individuals has been greater. In my judgment, it had to be faced. Of course it means higher current unemployment, but the fact that we are facing these problems should not be the cause for the criticism of which the Opposition are making so much today. The criticism is that we, as a nation, did not tackle them in good time before.
It is because of the underlying strength of the economy to which I referred and because we are facing up to modernisation that the overseas perception of our economy is so positively different today. That is why the OECD, in its latest economic survey, was able to comment:
the recovery … has now continued for longer than any other post war recovery … profitability has recovered. Both investments and exports have been strong. Employment has picked up rapidly since 1983. The economy has survived a 1 year miners' strike without any major disruption to output elsewhere. And the balance of payments has remained in surplus. Thus in many respects the economic performance has been good.
That is the background. We are building the strength of the economy for the future—something on which jobs will depend.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to employment measures, and I wish to deal with them. I shall leave aside the question of public sector capital spending, because we are shortly to have a debate on our White Paper on Government expenditure, and I can deal adequately with that question then.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to explain why, virtually alone among all the bodies commenting on these matters, the Government reject the concept of public investment to reduce unemployment. It is no good his talking about industries where the number of jobs will be reduced. He should be telling us why, for example, the Government will not increase housebuilding and put building employees back to work. What is the reason for that?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall deal with those matters during our public expenditure debate, when I will have time to do so in detail. We have, in fact, expanded road programmes with capital investment up by 20 per cent. in real terms since 1979. This year's public expenditure White Paper increased the housing renovation programme over last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not want to take too long. These matters will best be dealt with in a full day's debate on the public expenditure White Paper, when I shall happily tackle the right hon. Gentleman on these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman made much of his cost of employment approach. Even accepting his figures, which I do not, that sort of extrapolation is absurd. Is he suggesting that unemployment will fall to zero almost overnight, or even in the comparatively near future? That was what he implied, and that is what will be needed to make sense of his figures. However, he knows that that will not happen. After all, he said in his speech to the London Business School last month:
The need to encourage manufacturing has to be put into its proper perspective. I do not for a moment claim that it will directly have a massive effect on the level of unemployment.
He has tried to imply differently today.
If it were so easy, where were the tax cuts under the last Labour Government, who, on the right hon. Gentleman's analysis, also wasted large sums of money on


unemployment? Why, by his simply remedy, did not unemployment come down rather than double under his Government? Of course, income tax rates also rose.
Much more seriously, the right hon. Gentleman is engaged in the biggest conjuring trick of all time. He cannot bandy about those figures without saying how the real jobs will miraculously be conjured up. How will he set about creating gainful employment for all those people in the market place, without Government subsidy, on which his remedy would depend?
The truth is that a great surge in spending is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, as he has made clear, because that is his way of getting more jobs. The consequent surge in interest rates and inflation, and the devastating effect of that on the real productive industries of the economy, seem not to be in his mind. He takes no account of the many existing jobs that would be destroyed in his attempt to square the circle.
I had intended to comment at some length on the policies we have been pursuing on employment, training and job creation measures. However, I shall leave that to my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, whose responsibility it is.
One of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals is clearly absurd. As it is an Opposition Supply day debate, it is not unreasonable to ask how the Opposition's economic policies measure up to the present position, and what they would do about employment. I carefully noted what he put forward as his policies—they were all words and strategy, with absolutely nothing specific.
I shall start with privatisation. It is only fair to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to clarify the Opposition's position, since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor asked him a number of questions the last time that we debated the economy. In particular, he asked which of the privatised companies would be taken back into public ownership, and on what terms. The right hon. Gentleman responded with deafening silence and not a little squirming embarrassment.
Of course, we had an answer in part from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who has now left the Chamber. He said, first, on the radio a few weekends ago:
the use of budgets for re-nationalisation are going to have to take their place in a pretty long queue.
So far so good, although I note that a number of his colleagues have already been putting in the knife on that proposition.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, where industries were taken back into public ownership, shares would be bought back from the institutions at the original selling price. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook knows, the vast majority of institutional funds are held on behalf of pensioners and small investors who have invested their lifetime savings in life policies. Perhaps he has forgotten to tell his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, because the policies that his right hon. Friend announced would amount to a severe attack on the pensions and savings of millions of people. I hope that he will come clean and tell those millions of pensioners and potential pensioners which industries he proposes to take into public ownership, and when. No wonder the right hon. Gentleman is squirming with embarrassment.
Secondly, what will the terms be? It is the savings of those people that are at stake. It would be invidious to pick them out for that cruel and inequitable treatment. The right hon. Gentleman is slow to get on his feet on that point.
However, I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. Every time that he develops a plausible sounding policy, his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition takes it apart for him shortly afterwards. The Leader of the Opposition was up to his tricks again at the weekend. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was glued to his screen on Sunday lunchtime to discover what his taxation strategy was. Gone are the plans to increase taxation on the "bloody rich", whom the right hon. Gentleman has defined as families earning more than £20,000 a year. It appears now that there are two commitments, with which the right hon. Gentleman will find it exceedingly difficult to live.
According to the television interview given by the Leader of the Opposition, there will be swingeing increases on the 4 or 5 per cent. of the population who earn more than £30,000 a year. That has also been said this afternoon. Taxation would be up to almost 100 per cent. There was the clearest of hints that there would be no increase in the basic rate. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be no increase in the basic rate?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course.

Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Of course." That leaves a gaping hole in the taxation strategy. While we have heard much about broad approaches—we have heard about them again this afternoon—there has been deafening silence on some economic policies. The Opposition's public spending commitments are much more specific. It is difficult to keep track of each one, but we are doing our best. We are costing them as fast as we can. I notice how nervous the hon. Member for Thurrock is becoming. We are costing them even at the risk of overheating our calculators. The figure is enormous. Leaving out one-off promises and pledges on renationalisation, and considering only the cost of continuing commitments, the total amounts to £24 billion.
If the sad day ever dawns when the right hon. Gentleman sits on the Government Benches, he will be forced to trim, but that is the extent of the bribe that he is currently offering to the British people. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to finance that massive increase in spending?

Mr. Ron Leighton: Too long.

Mr. MacGregor: No wonder the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) does not want to listen either.

Mr. Ian Gow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry; will my hon. Friend allow me to finish?
If there were such a crippling tax on higher incomes, it is unlikely that any but a few would continue to see the point in earning more than £30,000 a year, so the yield would come tumbling down. Even on the absurd assumption that everyone above that level continued to earn those sums—working for the Government in effect—the yield would be far short of what the Leader of the


Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman believe. It would be only a minuscule proportion of the total extra public spending to which they are committed.
The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that there would be no increase in basic rate, so where would the money come from? If he chose to finance the programme through value added tax, he would need an increase of 26 percentage points, taking the rate to 41 per cent. The effect on pensioners and those on low incomes would be colossal and the effect on inflation would be likewise. Yet it was the right hon. Gentleman who said:
in terms of promoting employment opportunities throughout the country …nothing is more important than containing inflation."—[Official Report, 7 February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 1271.]
How does he square that policy? How will he create the money to finance his public spending plans? What impact would that have on jobs? No wonder the right hon. Gentleman, in his manifesto for the Labour party leadership, analysed his party's catastrophic failure at the previous general election in the following terms:
We failed because we made promises which many of our potential supporters believed we could not keep.
Our record compared with that of the right hon. Gentleman's party, our respective policies and the credibility of our policies give me every confidence in asking the House to reject the Opposition's motion and to support the Government's amendment. I note the total silence on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I accept the Chief Secretary's argument about productivity and efficiency. There is no future for the nation in overmanning or maintaining inefficient and out-of-date working methods. It often strikes me how regularly the Labour party appears to argue for the continuance of those trends, but I am sure that the House recognises that there is no future in that approach.
The Chief Secretary's speech was interesting and I give him credit for defending the Government's position with some vigour. However, his speech revolved round a selective use of statistics. It is no good telling us how marvellous the improvement has been since 1981 when the Government have been in charge of the economy since 1979. Statistics can be useful, but their usefulness depends on where one starts from. The Government cannot defend their record merely on the basis of what has happened since 1981.
Even on the Government's criteria, I do not believe that the position is anything like as good as they would have us believe. I give the Minister and the Cabinet some credit. The Government have constantly alluded to their fight against inflation. That has been a regular theme during the past six years. But progress has not been as impressive as the Government would have us believe. The United Kingdom inflation rate is about 5·7 per cent. The figures of our major competitors are less, with one exception. The United States has an inflation rate of 3·8 per cent., Switzerland has 3·2 per cent., Japan 1·8 per cent., Holland 0·9 per cent., West Germany 1·3 per cent. and even Scialist France has a lower rate, at 4·7 per cent. Our only significant industrial competitor with a higher level of inflation is Italy at 8·6 per cent.
The depreciation of the pound that has occurred worsens those statistics, even though it may assist others. On the major index on which the Government wish to be judged, progress is significant, but is nothing like as strong as the Minister would have us believe. The cause of that is shown by statistics on earnings that come easily to hand.
The weakness of the approach of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was that he did not mention earnings from one end of his speech to the other. We are all aware of the impact of earnings. Average earnings in Britain are rising by about 8·6 per cent. Among our competitors, they are rising by 3·1 per cent. in the United States, 3 per cent. in Switzerland, 3·8 per cent. in Japan, 1·9 per cent. in Holland, 3·2 per cent. in West Germany and 6 per cent. in France. Those increases are significantly less than that in Britain.
The Chief Secretary knows that the reality is worse than the figure of 8·6 per cent. Pay settlements in the manufacturing sector, which must succeed in competing against countries wishing to sell to us and against other industries wishing to sell abroad, are higher than the average figure. That is compensated in part by the vigorous way in which the Government have kept down pay settlements in the Government sector—a broad and general definition. Pay settlements in the manufacturing sector, where they count most, have been higher.
In broad-sweep terms, the Government will not be able to hold their position during the next three, four and five years. Their argument about teachers and the erosion of their pay relative to people with similar responsibilities and skills in the manufacturing sector cannot be sustained. One wilts at the thought that a 10 per cent. rise for Government employees would cost about £4 billion, which I suspect would exceed the extra tax that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook hopes to get from those earning over £30,000 a year.
Pressure is welling up and the next Government will have to deal with it. I doubt whether even this Government, with all their determination, will succeed in keeping the lid on that pressure until the next general election. If they do succeed, a good few Conservative Members will be looking for alternative employment after the election, as the anger of their constituents is expressed in the only way available to them.
So far, I have examined two criteria and both suggest that the position is worse than the Government claim.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Is not the reality that teachers' pay has kept up with inflation, but has not kept up with pay awards elsewhere in industry? As a nation, we are still pricing ourselves out of jobs by paying ourselves more than we earn. That is the pressure which is making us less competitive. What would the alliance do about that?

Mr. Penhaligon: I will not duck that issue. Our solution is not an easy one, but we believe that it would work. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. He confirms that teachers, who are important to our economy, are in a worse position than those with similar skills in the manufacturing sector. I do not wish to argue about teachers' pay today. I mention it merely as an illustration of the pressure—sometimes venom—that is building up.


We used to be told that if we controlled the money supply everything would fall neatly into place. That was the message that the Conservatives gave to the British people in 1979 and that message got them elected.
The narrow definition of money, M1, is increasing in this country at the astronomical rate of 17·;4 per cent. The broad definition is increasing at a rate of 13·6 per cent. On the narrow definition, we have a higher increase in money supply than any country with which we are roughly comparable. On the broad definition, our rate of increase is second only to that of Australia.
If the Minister who is to reply can find time to answer only one question, I hope that it will be the one that I am about to ask. Do the Government still believe that controlling the money supply will solve the inflationary pressures in our society? If so, do they believe that current difficulties have been caused because they have not succeeded in controlling the money supply? Or do they believe that the money supply does not control those matters? It must be one or the other. Whichever it is, one must ask what controls these difficulties if the money supply does not.
On the three-month money market, United Kingdom interest rates are just over 13 per cent. Rates in other countries are 7·5 per cent. in the United States, 4 per cent. in Switzerland, 6 per cent. in Japan, 5 per cent. in Holland, 4·5 per cent. in West Germany, and 9 per cent. in France. Again, Italy is the only country with a higher rate.
The Government's policy in the past couple of months has been to increase interest rates even more, to defend the pound because of the reduction in oil prices. That has worked to an extent, though the increase has been a shade less than I thought that the Government would introduce. The strategy since 1979 has been high interest rates and high exchange rates, with oil taking the strain. That has led to 3·4 million unemployed. The only OECD country with a higher rate of unemployment is Holland, and unemployment is falling there, but is still increasing here.
How can we manage to get unemployment on to a downward trend while maintaining and increasing our manufacturing sector? It is not a simple task, and the only alternative to the Government's policy is a form of pay strategy. It is easy for the Labour Opposition to be irresponsible and to pretend that such a strategy is not the pill which must be swallowed if we wish to do something about unemployment.
The alliance believes firmly that without some form of pay strategy, which will reduce settlements in the manufacturing sector, no sustainable reduction in unemployment can be achieved. Indeed, without something being done about pay settlements, on a three-year or four-year basis, we shall see a further escalation of the current tragedy.
The alliance may lose support because of its policy, but we shall be explaining honestly between now and the next election how a restrictive pay strategy, including elements such as profit-sharing, represents the only real alternative to the Government's approach. I accept that the Government will not introduce such a strategy and that their mandate was not to do that.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about teachers and other groups and referred

to a potential explosion. What would the Liberal party do about that problem? Would it rat on its promises to teachers?

Mr. Penhaligon: No. We believe that the incoming Government will have to make an adjustment—an expensive and painful adjustment—for many people in the Government sector to give them a little justice in their lives. It will not be as much as they desire, but we recognise that it will have to be done and when we put forward our Budget, hon. Members will see how that is incorporated.

Mr. Tony Marlow: How much will it cost?

Mr. Penhaligon: I said that a 10 per cent. increase across the board would cost £14 billion. We could leave out the forces, the police and the fire service, but 10 per cent. across the board would be a very large sum and I am not trying to duck that question.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: rose—

Mr. John Powley: rose—

Mr. Penhaligon: I have given way quite a lot already. This is a short debate and we ought to get on. I have a feeling that we shall be having many such debates in the next few months when we can explore the matters.
The alliance believes that there is a role for investment, even within the current strategy, in a number of infrastructure projects that could help to relieve unemployment. We agree with the Chief Secretary that the room for flexibility is limited. Given that my party's determination is not to continue asset sales after the election, when we are in government our room for manoeuvre will be even less. However, the Government could afford to run the public sector borrowing requirement at a higher rate and to invest to save jobs.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer concludes, as I suspect that he will, that there is some room for tax cuts this year, if not as much as he was hoping for four or five months ago, that money must be directed to the lower paid and to job creation. The alliance and many Conservative Members believe that if the Government have a little money, it should be given to the lower paid, who have been worst affected by income tax changes under this Government, or to job creation. I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that view is shared by many Conservative Members, particularly those representing areas where unemployment has reached the tragic level of 25 per cent. which exists in some parts of my county.
We shall support the Opposition's motion and we shall vote against the Government's amendment. Unfortunately, the motion does not say what the Opposition would do to tackle the problems. It is strong on diagnosis and weak on content. The Minister cannot say that the Liberal party has not acknowledged that a difficult pill has to be swallowed if we are to return the 3·4 million unemployed to work.

Mr. Francis Pym: The only point that I would concede to the Opposition this afternoon is their choice of subject. Government economic policy and the level of unemployment is one of the most important issues facing our country today. I find the


Opposition's attitude to unemployment acceptable in terms of their concern about the experience of it and their dislike of it, but totally unimpressive in terms of solutions. They have offered us no solutions of any kind today.
I have some sympathy with the views of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the cost of unemployment. In July 1985 I had considerable correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this aspect on behalf of my Conservative Centre Forward colleagues. I cannot say that we achieved a meeting of minds.
This afternoon my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary made some very important comments about the cost of unemployment, and it is one aspect that we cannot dismiss. The huge cost of leaving all these human resources idle is very great and must be taken into account. This afternoon I urge my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to adopt an altogether more far-reaching, comprehensive and imaginative strategy to tackle the gigantic problem of unemployment.
My right hon. Friends have expressed their worry and anxiety about unemployment, but I do not think that their actions have yet matched their rhetoric. They have not acknowledged the magnitude of the problem, nor recognised its nature. To understand the unfairness of unemployment and the denial of freedom which it represents; to understand that it is individual people and not the nation as a whole that suffers it—after all, more than 80 per cent. of us are doing all right thank you very much; to understand the scale and the value of the human resources that are being wasted by unemployment—to understand all this is to create the motivation and inspiration to take commensurate action.
I differ from almost all of my hon. Friends and from politicians of all parties in my assessment of the future of employment and the effect that the technological revolution will have. I find that my views are very close to a great many in industry and commerce. None of us can peer into the future and predict events with any accuracy, but we can use our experience to detect trends, see new opportunities emerging, and warn of the dangers ahead.
Even if my assessment of rising unemployment as a result of present policies is only half right, that does not mean that there is nothing we can do to alleviate the problem or take an entirely fresh look at the future of work. What I am clear about, and have been for several years, is that the present situation is unacceptable. We can do more about it.
I see the technological revolution as a marvellous opportunity and unlike anything that has happened before. Unlike the industrial revolution, it can actually take the drudgery out of work. It can make possible a very different kind of life. The social changes it will bring are almost too enormous to grasp, but grasped they must be, and prepared for.
I shall come later to the measures that I would like to see taken at once—indeed, measures that I should have liked to have seen taken several years ago. Those measures can be taken appropriately only in the context of a longterm overall strategy that deals with the real heart and nature of the problem, which is that the number of man-hours needed to produce what we can sell and what we need is reducing at an accelerating rate.
In the past century, the average number of man-hours per annum in manufacturing industry has declined from 154,000 for a working lifetime to 88,000. In the past 15 years the fall in average man-hours has been 10 per cent. In those same 15 years economic growth has been 22 per cent., and there has been a sustained rise in service industries, yet total employment has dropped by 10 per cent.
My right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench ask us to accept that an adherence to their economic policy will somehow put everyone back to work in due course. There have been many gains in terms of inflation, productivity and improvements in industrial relations legislation, for example, but in terms of curing unemployment the policy has not worked. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's last Budget was entitled a Budget for jobs. Look what happened. In military language, the intelligence and appreciation have been inadequate.
Before coming to the United Kingdom dimension of a problem that is worldwide, I shall remind the House of the international background. None of us can go it alone now. We are all interdependent, so international co-operation is essential. Unfortunately, there is too little of it at present. Domestic political pressures bear so heavily on Governments—all Governments—that international co-operation is not accorded the top priority that it should have.
The mutual problems that the world faces today are serious enough to contain at least the seeds of a possible collapse of the monetary system. These problems include the scale of indebtedness and the huge interest payments that they attract, the United States deficit, the instability of exchange rates, the threat of protectionism, and the lack of co-ordinated trade policies. Our Government are trying to tackle all these problems, and so are others, but the will to co-operate does not yet exist widely enough or strongly enough to produce the required results. I think the truth of this may emerge in due course.
One local example is the sluggishness of the development of the European Community. The most obvious area for a concerted initiative is unemployment. but it has not happened so far.
The limits imposed upon nation states by this lack of effective international co-operation, and the opportunities missed as a result of it, are considerable. I urge the Government to redouble their efforts in this direction. I know my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is making them, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to do so, too, with her standing and authority within the international community.
I come now to the strategy that I would like to see pursued. It is essentially long term, because there are no quick or easy answers, the causes of unemployment being far too deep-seated for that, but some elements of the strategy would have a beneficial effect in the near term, and amongst these I would include the first element, which is the commitment to growth and the creation of wealth, which is the commitment of Her Majesty's Government.
There is no doubt that there are some favourable and hopeful aspects of our economy, and we have a restoration of a growth path, but what is needed is a gradual but sustained increase in demand—not in consumption, but in exports. The vital need is to regenerate our manufacturing industry and improve our competitiveness. That is the only way to secure the share of world markets


that we need, and to achieve higher growth without inflation and a balance of payments problem. Competitiveness is the key word, and that means more investment in productive industry and a deliberate policy of cutting industrial costs.
In practice, competitiveness means shedding more labour and installing more technology, and in that sense it exacerbates unemployment. However, growth and wealth creation are indispensable for any recovery from unemployment.
The second element of the strategy is a more positive industrial policy. The Government spurn any thought of this as some sort of heresy. To them, the phrase "industrial policy" means some sort of sacrilege and an approach to the dreaded consensus. If that were to mean beer and sandwiches at No. 10, I agree that it would be the ultimate abusurdity, but I do not mean that.
The role that I see for the Government is not an interfering one, and certainly not an operational one. I see them as having a supportive and co-ordinating role. In the world at large, nothing remotely like a free market exists. All Governments dole out subsidies to all sorts of industries, with the result that there is not genuine competition. It is only my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench who can provide a response to unfair foreign competition.
I suspect that if a firm and sensible relationship existed between the Government and industry, we could have secured the recent United States defence contract that went to France. The French Government were deeply involved in the task of obtaining that order from the outset. There is a clear lesson for us there.
The third element is an altogether more substantial and sophisticated regional policy. National statistics are a bad guide to the differing needs of different regions and I consider them to be positively misleading. I shall divide the regions into two categories for the sake of brevity, but the variations between them are more subtle than that and need consideration on their own merits. The simple division is the one between declining regions and expanding regions, in which needs are very different.
In the declining regions, there is a need to revive and stimulate new activity to the maximum possible extent, and the Government have taken many measures to that end. The most recent measure is the inner-city programme, but there have been numerous others. I support and endorse all these programmes. However, my view remains that the Government would have been wiser to listen to the warnings that some of us were giving a few years ago and to act more positively at an earlier stage.
Money is not the only criterion. Indeed, it is perhaps not even mainly a question of money. Organisation and imagination are required. We have not measured up to the deprivation that has been experienced in the declining regions. We have justified it to ourselves, but I do not think that we have acted with understanding or with the action that is required in the light of the experience of those who live in the regions concerned. I hope that we shall stop doing too little too late and get ahead of the problems.
The needs of the expanding regions are entirely different from the regions which are in decline. The expansion is coming in the south and in East Anglia because of the dominance of the European market. Huge opportunities exist in these regions and as a nation I do not think that we are thinking hard enough about taking full advantage of them. In these regions expansion raises many

difficulties and Cambridgeshire is an example. In Cambridgeshire, we have what is called the Cambridge phenomenon, which means that the expansion of the technologically based industries—the process has been continuing for more than 50 years—has reached the point at which the limits of the capacity of the local infrastructure have been reached. No such limits existed in earlier times because the extra infrastructure could be constructed immediately. No such limits existed when, for example, Liverpool was building itself into the great city that it was and is. There, as elsewhere, every opportunity was grasped and building went ahead.
There are constraints to such development nowadays, and environmental and planning constraints are two examples. These constraints attract the support of virtually everyone. Let us realise the straitjacket to enterprise that these constraints impose. The local authorities of Cambridgeshire are working hard to ascertain how and where to extend development. They are doing the best that they can, but, in addition to all the local considerations that are being given to these issues throughout the country, there needs to be regional and national consideration. We should be working to an intellectually coherent pattern, and I do not think that that exists currently.
At present, we have a mis-match of resources between the declining and expanding regions and we must have a policy that is designed to correct it over a period. That means that it must encompass the mobility of labour. There are many reasons why labour is far more immobile today than it was in the 1930s. Indeed, there are far too many reasons to mention. It must be in our national interest to make it easier for people to move if they wish to do so, especially from the declining to the expanding regions.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend subscribe to the view that we should boost private sector rented accommodation?

Mr. Pym: Yes, I do. It will be necessary to do that. It was easier for people to move from one area to another in the 1930s because they were able to rent a room or a flat. I accept that they could be turned out very quickly., but there was scope to move that does not exist now, Another part of the problem that must be considered is the cost of moving and the difficulty that people have in meeting it. I do not see anyone in the Government or elsewhere thinking about these issues. We need to ensure that we consider them and introduce a programme that begins to tackle them.

Mr. Holt: My right hon. Friend has said that no one is thinking about the problems associated with mobility. May I draw his attention to the Northern Echo of last Saturday. If he reads it, he will see that my initiative of a job link between that newspaper and the Buxton Press has resulted in yet another person finding a job, leaving the dole in the north and travelling to the prosperous south along the lines that my right hon Friend has set out. Unfortunately, the Government are just not interested.

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has corrected me, and quite rightly. The point is that no one is thinking of these problems nationally. I accept that there is concern regionally, but there is no collecting of views and no co-ordinating of them. There is no input from the centre as far as I can see.


The fourth element is a larger programme of public works than we have now that concentrates on capital expenditure, especially housing. I do not accept that this need be inflationary. I know that some of my hon. Friends think that the slightest increase in anything will be inflationary. We know from our experience from the Falkland Islands and the miners' strike that that is not true. We must remember the enormous spare capacity that 3 million to 4 million unemployed represents. The least that we can do is provide activity for a few of the millions of individuals who are affected by unemployment, who need better housing, a better life and some hope.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I find some difficulty in squaring my right hon. Friend's belief that we should channel more capital spending, presumably into public housing in the so-called declining regions, rather than taking legislative steps to improve the supply of private rented accommodation in the expanding regions to which he has referred. I agree with almost everything else that he has said.

Mr. Pym: My hon. Friend may disagree with me about that and may consider that any public investment is not right. I do not share that view. I think that there is scope for the development of both private and public sectors.
The four elements of the strategy that I submitted to the House would have, in my view, a valuable effect on unemployment in the short term, although I would not exaggerate it, and would certainly have a valuable effect in the long term. Other elements must be added if the strategy is to be complete and effective. I shall mention them only briefly now, but they are all important.
On education, there is an obvious need for training and retraining for industry and commerce and for the raising of education standards generally. The worst indictment of our education and training programmes is that we are already short of skilled labour before a major recovery has occurred. That is an indispensable resource which we can and must expand if we are ever to achieve the adequate growth that I am sure the House wants.
There is also the long term issue of preparing our children for a life which, for many of them, will mean more leisure than any previous generation has known. If they are not prepared for it, they will be unable to enjoy it. What a waste that would be. I regard higher education and research as crucially important to our future, and I should like our policy to be reversed. We need to capitalise on our successes and to develop our universities and research centres into something that is even better than what we have now. The present policy of starving them and squeezing them is short sighted. We are the best inventors in the world, and we have some claim to be the best educators in the world. We must remain at the top of that league.
As the House knows, I believe that there should be a much more radical and far-reaching reform of the social welfare system. I spoke recently about this, so I shall mention only the two most basic needs of the new system. First, there must be a permanent incentive to work—that is, an end to the poverty trap and an end to the "Why work?" syndrome. Secondly, poverty must be prevented, so far as that can be achieved. I put forward my views in the House about a month ago. I have also made them known outside Parliament.

Mr. Ralph Howell: My right hon. Friend has referred to putting an end to the poverty trap and to the "Why work?" syndrome, but he referred earlier in his speech to the need to spend more public money. However, we are creating unemployment. We are taxing people so heavily at the lower end of the scale that many of them are giving up work because they are better off if they draw unemployment benefit.

Mr. Pym: It is precisely that absurdity that it is so important to end. I put forward my views to the House on another occasion about how that might be achieved. The ending of the poverty trap and, so far as is possible, the prevention of poverty are essential ingredients in any strategy to deal with unemployment.
There is also the important question of the distribution of employment. The Government have a job sharing scheme and they are absolutely right to encourage it, but this whole new subject deserves much deeper study. I should like the public to be more involved in the discussions about a shorter working week, early voluntary retirement and sabbaticals on a weekly, daily or monthly basis. Of course that would affect incomes. That is part of the problem. But I do not believe that the British people will ever feel comfortable if most of us are occupied all our lives and doing all right while a substantial minority are having a pretty miserable and unsatisfying life. We need to redefine the word "employment". We also need to redefine unemployment and even work itself. Such an open debate and discussion can only help people to understand what is happening and will happen in our society.
Finally, I shall mention a point that some hon. Members may feel is too marginal to mention, but which I feel is important. I dislike intensely the tendency towards centralisation. I should like there to be a revival of provincialism. We need to revive and nurture the feelings of local pride as well as the feelings of patriotism. They go together. They are complementary. Everybody understands that many major decisions have to be taken nationally, but let all the decisions that can be taken locally be taken locally. That is a basic conservative principle. It enriches the tapestry of the nation and it is in accord with people's aspirations. In its own limited way I believe that it would help people, especially in the declining regions, in their battle against unemployment and the deprivation that that implies.

Mr. Derek Foster: How will the right hon. Gentleman be voting tonight?

Mr. Pym: I shall be voting in support of my Government. I am urging my right hon. Friends to go a great deal further than they have gone so far. The Opposition have suggested nothing for which anybody could conceivably vote.
This strategy would cost money. I said on an earlier occasion in this House that it should be paid for out of the proceeds of privatisation. To use those proceeds in this way would not only be understood by everyone; it would be very acceptable to everyone as a reinvestment of national assets to help the unemployed. It would also mean an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement but, as I have said before, I do not accept that that need be inflationary. The money must be spent on productive investment, not on consumption. This strategy also means


that I do not believe that a cut in personal tax rates is the right or the best use of available resources in the coming Budget.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pym: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not do so. I have come almost to the end of my speech.
However, it is right—and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do this—to adjust tax allowances and to raise tax thresholds so that at the lower end of the scale some benefit is achieved.
I apologise for keeping the House for so long. I regard the present unemployment problem and the future of employment as one of the greatest challenges of our time. That challenge can be met only by a strategy that is comprehensive, coherent and complete. That is what I have sought to outline today to the House.

Mr. Sean Hughes: I agree with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) that unemployment is one of the greatest problems that affects us today.
Last weekend the word appeared to go out from the Government that their economic policies have a humane face to them, after all. However, there is no evidence to back up that assertion. I listened to those speeches with the same incredulity as I listened to the speeches of Conservative Members who say that the Opposition have no monopoly of conscience. However, for sheer effrontery the speech last November of the chairman of the Conservative party takes some heating. In his Disraeli lecture he said:
I know that at the front of that campaign for a return to traditional values of decency and order will be the Conservative Party.
Does he indeed? After seven years of this Government's policies, a Government of which he, more than most, is the epitome, it is those values that are most at risk. Time after time in speech after speech we have listened to the litany of the misery arising from mass unemployment, but apparently the Government have been unmoved. Even the Church of England is dismissed as dangerously Marxist when it has the temerity to point out what is happening in some of our deprived areas.
Whole regions of this country have been turned into industrial deserts. A generation of young people has been written off. Youth unemployment in my borough is over 50 per cent. Adult unemployment is 25 per cent. On the main industrial estate, Huyton, in my constituency, the 6,800 jobs that existed in 1978 have been reduced to 3,000. My borough council has a five-year plan to create jobs. It has projected 630 new jobs over a five-year period that began in 1984. Just one closure, such as the Plessey closure last summer, can wipe out the whole of that projected five-year gain.
The harsh unpalatable truth, therefore, is that in areas such as mine the resources simply do not exist to generate a recovery on their own. With a few noble exceptions, private industry has failed spectacularly to help us to solve the problem. Without Government assistance there will never be a recovery in these areas and the quality of life

will continue to collapse. In such areas the Government are therefore destroying the very values that they have the impertinence to claim as their own.
I shall not go as far as to say, "So much for caring capitalism", but I have come across an even more outrageous use of the English language. In his essay "The Moral Dimension", published by the Institute of Economic Affairs in 1978, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote:
Capitalism is essentially based on voluntarism—the idea of voluntary co-operation and voluntary exchange.
I can tell the Chancellor and his colleagues that there is nothing voluntary about the 100,000 jobs lost on Merseyside since 1979, or the 4,500 jobs lost in the borough of Knowsley between 1982 and 1985.
Our motion condemns the callous, irresponsible economic policies pursued by the Government. Those policies deserve condemnation, not merely for inhumanity and callousness, although, God knows, that would be condemnation enough, but also as being wasteful, inefficient and profligate. The single greatest waste is of human skill, talent, intellect and endeavour which is spelt out in the monthly unemployment figures. The Government have forced whole communities to become dependent on the state, yet in the debate on the Address in 1978 the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, declared that it was a disgrace and a reflection of four years of Labour Government that
5 million people … have to have recourse to social security."
—[Official Report, 1 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 24.]
Today, as a direct result of this Government's economic policies, that figure is 7·6 million. Far from feeling that that is a disgrace, the Government parade that figure as proof of their commitment to the welfare state.
As we have frequently pointed out, that has been happening while the country has been enjoying the one-off bonanza of North sea oil. The Government and their supporters tell us that we have no right to isolate this one national resource, even if it is so finite and temporary. That is a bit of a cheek because in the debate on the Address in November 1977 the right hon. Lady was at it again. She said that one way of judging how badly the Labour Government had done was
to imagine what the position would be without the prospect of North Sea oil … They have neither policy nor strategy. They are running industry into decline, hoping that North Sea oil will rescue them … I do not think that North Sea oil will be used to strengthen industry."—[Official Report, 3 November 977; Vol. 938, c. 23–24.]
Those words should be judged against the sums received from North sea oil revenues. In 1976–77 the country received £81 million, and today it receives £11 billion, every penny piece of which has been wasted on keeping people unemployed while, to rephrase the Prime Minister's words of eight and a half years ago, this Government have been running industry, not so much into a decline, as to widespread destruction and disappearance.
I referred to the Disraeli lecture of the Conservative party chairman and I shall conclude with his words. A price, he intoned, has to be paid for freedom. He continued:
Not just eternal vigilance but the acceptance of responsibility—not least responsibility for the consequences of one's own action.
If he and his colleagues are honest with themselves, they will recognise that it is time they accepted responsibility for the sheer misery which their economic policies have inflicted on so many people in deprived regions.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer: I shall concentrate my remarks on the ability of manufacturing industry to generate jobs. Those who work in industry will understand the close correlation between confidence and willingness to invest. Perhaps industry looks to Government most to provide a consistent approach. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor have recognised that, and their Budget statements and speeches have made priorities absolutely clear: to control inflation, improve competitiveness and increase incentives. That is the only solid foundation for jobs. Today inflation is largely under control, and we have increased competitiveness, fewer strikes than at any time since the war, and an economy showing creditable growth for the fifth successive year.
Today's intemperate motion suggests that the Labour party has learnt little from its experience in the 1970s—or has it? Those of us who watched Brian Walden invite the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) into a new world where a new deal might be offered got the flavour of his temptation to ditch clause four and all that element of the Labour inheritance. However, the shadow of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other hon. Members made him back away from that. He showed considerable interst in what Roosevelt achieved. If the right hon. Gentleman visits America, I hope that he will contrast the ability of the American economy to generate jobs with that of our economy. Some 19 million extra jobs were created in America between 1974 and 1984, whereas we lost 1 million jobs as a direct consequence of pay not keeping pace with inflation. However, that may not be the lesson that he seeks there.
There is one element of a new deal which the Labour party could deliver to industrial confidence. In the United States when Governments change, the ground rules are not dramatically changed. If the Labour party accepts, as some of its spokesmen do, that industrial confidence is part of sustaining jobs, at least we can all hold on to that. It would offer some hope for the future, if the Labour party ever formed another Government.
Equally, evidence regarding the Labour party's senior spokesmen suggests that much hard-won ground will be surrendered. Inflation will recur, trade union privilege will be restored, and industry's discretion to invest where its interests lie will be severely distorted. As a result, confidence will drain away.
If companies and their employees recognise that Government policy is stable, non-inflationary growth is more likely to be achieved. We have evidence of that before us, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is to be congratulated. One area of uncertainty where he does not have the control that he would wish is over exchange rates.
The variation in exchange rates is a matter of life and death to some companies. One such company in my constituency wrote:
In recent weeks the pound has reached a level against European currencies that gives my company, and many others like us, a chance to compete with European manufacturers on equal terms. What is desperately needed now is for the Government to take the opportunity to enter the ERM and subsequently to accept the discipline that this will impose on its economic policy. I do not exaggerate in saying that my own company would be employing at least 50 more people than it is today, i.e. an 11 per cent. increase in our workforce, if this action had been taken when a suitable opportunity arose previously at

the beginning of 1985. Furthermore, we would have been investing far more in new product and process development, new capital investment, and in employee training; all matters of vital importance to our company's and to the country's future.
I am sure that my right hon. Friends in the Government understand only too clearly what is being said, and that they will follow that with action when the opportunity occurs.
The Opposition motion refers to the destruction of the nation's manufacturing industry as if 1979 were some sort of miracle year, and Conservative Chancellors were uniquely responsible for the shake-out that followed the second oil shock, the winter of discontent and a long period of over-manning. Let us not pretend that we do not still have serious problems. Many of them are deep-seated and some go back a long way. The anti-industry culture probably goes back to the excesses of the industrial revolution. We have not had the change in attitude in our senior universities that we would like. I do not think that I am alone in wanting those universities to have a school for business studies at the same level as Harvard and Stanford.
We still have a predominance of talent in the City at the expense of manufacturing industry, and the rewards are disproportionate. We lack a home market large enough to provide a base from which to compete internationally. There is an imbalance in too many areas in the power of the retailer against the manufacturer. We have a trade union movement that still finds it more comfortable to look backward rather than forward and a Civil Service that has not been sufficiently schooled in the real world to carry out efficiently the tasks given to it by politicians, who too often lack the relevant experience to compensate for this weakness.
Let us not pretend that these problems will be solved overnight.

Mr. John Prescott: What about management?

Mr. Bulmer: I shall not argue that there is no scope for improvement, but I think that it has improved.

Mr. Prescott: As in the unions.

Mr. Bulmer: Let us not pretend that, whatever the Government, manufacturing industry will rapidly create the number of jobs that have been lost to modern technology. In 1974, the carpet industry in my constituency was employing 1,500 people; now, it employs under 500 people. Many hon. Members will see that happening in their constituencies. The print industry is only the most recent example. We can expect that the problems facing agriculture and, later, banking will lead to many more job losses.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is right to promote small business and self-employment, to finance training on an unprecedented scale and to make it cheaper to employ the young and unskilled. After all, that was the thrust of his last Budget. None of those aims can be described as callous and irresponsible.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will return in his next Budget to the theme of encouraging the long-term competitiveness of industry, and the means of fostering research and development and encouraging higher investment. There is no doubt that the loss of capital allowances is acting on some companies in a way which,


I suspect, was not intended. It would undoubtedly be helpful if my right hon. Friend could see his way clear to introduce a 25 per cent. straight line depreciation.
I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) in wishing to see more evidence of long-term thinking. Exposure to market forces has led to dramatic improvements in productivity but the stock market is too short-term. We all know very well that many companies would like to take investment decisions in the medium term, let alone the long term, but are afraid to do so because of the impact on short-term profitability. They are afraid that it might invite unwelcome takeover bids.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will think in the time leading up to the Budget about how to encourage long-term investment decisions and provide some protection from the stock exchange raid. There are many more medium-sized companies in Germany than in Britain because capital taxation there has not driven companies to the market. Public companies which are perhaps protected by discretionary trusts find that the 10-year valuations for capital gains tax can mean that a great many shares have to be sold, opening them to the possibility of a takeover bid.
The measure that offers perhaps most hope for the future is profit sharing, with many more companies having profit sharing schemes and a significant body of employees owning shares and speaking for the work force. Many of us find the takeover of a company and the dismissal of many people wholly offensive. There is no doubt that there should be more protection for the company that is doing a decent job.
I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East in wishing to see wider cooperation, especially in Europe. The greater financial strength of so many United States and Japanese companies demands that we identify our strategic interest and take steps to preserve it, or the most that we shall preserve is a series of minority holdings through pension funds and investment trusts. Perhaps that matter cannot be debated in public, but I think that we should all like much more assurance.
I regret the intemperate language of the motion. The problems of unemployment are far too serious for that. In industry we have learned the hard way the price of adversarial politics. It is time that hon. Members came out of their trenches more often and sought common ground.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is just time to call one more Back Bencher. I understand that the first of the Front-Bench speakers wishes to rise at 6.30 pm.

Mr. Ron Leighton: It is proper for the House to return to the subject of unemployment at the Opposition's bidding, because it is the main economic, social and, I would emphasise, moral issue facing Britain. The chronic multi-million mass unemployment is an appalling waste of resources and a crime against those whose souls rot on the dole in enforced idleness through no fault of their own.
There is no sign that anyone has come to grips with the size, scope or gravity of the problem. I do not suppose that anyone consciously thought in 1979, "Let us adopt

policies that will cause unemployment of 4 million to 5 million." Yet that is what has happened. There is no sign of any improvement. The prospect that beckons is a continuation of mass unemployment into the foreseeable future.
Perhaps the most worrying feature is the relentless, remorseless growth within the overall total of the percentage of long-term unemployed, who now number 1·6 million. About 823,000 people have been unemployed for two years and 533,000 people have been out of a job for three years. Many have given up hope of ever working again, or of ever working at all, because many have not worked since leaving school and have never known anything other than a workless, jobless society. Many people are marrying and starting families never having had a job. In some areas, the whole of the young generation are being alienated and shut out of society. We tolerate this at our peril. We are storing up a time bomb for the future.
If a society kicks these young people in the teeth, we must hope that they do not return the compliment. Is it any wonder that, in some areas, especially where there is an additional layer of disadvantage—racial disadvantage—the situation can become explosive? The greatest distress is among the long-term unemployed. As clothes and household items wear out, the money is not there to replace them. It adds insult to injury that the long-term unemployed are the only group not allowed the higher rate of long-term benefit.
What are we to do about the problem? We cannot carry on in the old way, with the same tired, ineffective policies. The Government must be receptive to new ideas. There must be new approaches. At present, there is a complete failure of imagination. We must use our wits and intelligence to address this problem. That is what the Select Committee on Employment has been doing for the past year.
Is it not an amazing paradox that we are surrounded on all sides by acute, growing. unmet needs, both public and private, accompanied by resources, both human and material, which are left idle? Is that not crazy and uneconomic? We pay people to stay at home in idleness when so much needs to be done. When we have these unmet needs and unused resources, is it really beyond our wits to put the two together? It may be said that market forces are not doing this. I would say, "Too bad for market forces." We must find other ways to resolve this paradox. During the war, when we wanted tanks, guns and aeroplanes, we did not leave it to market forces—we mobilised our intelligence in a great national effort. That is what we must do now.
A good example is the fact that there is a £20 billion backlog in repairs for council housing, yet we pay half a million building workers to stay at home. Does that make any sense? It is a failure on the part of all of us. We must be able to do better. The Select Committee considered this problem carefully for a year. We concluded that no usual or orthodox upturn in the economy was likely or in prospect that would provide the millions of new jobs in two or three years to dent the current unemployment level. The Committee therefore recommended, as well as a mix of measures to regenerate the economy, an immediate programme of special employment measures for quick action in the short term with the target being the long-term unemployed, where the need is greatest.
We studied cutting taxation as a means of creating jobs but that is a comparatively expensive way of creating jobs.


The net cost of an unemployed person is £47,000. Special employment measures which cost between £3,000 or £4,000 per person are obviously the best buy if the aim is to reduce unemployment. These measures produce 10 times the number of jobs as tax cuts and the measures can be targeted at the long-term unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed is 1·6 million. Our recommendation is that we should provide a job guarantee to the long-term unemployed. That could be done by providing about 1 million jobs. The community programme is being expanded to a quarter of a million places. Where are the other three quarters of a million jobs to come from? One obvious source is urban rehabilitation.
We recommend that there should be a programme of building improvements with 300,000 extra jobs provided at a net cost of £1·5 billion. The second part of the programme would be in health and personal social services—especially helping with care in the community. An extra 100,000 jobs could be found here at a net cost of £400 million. The third part of the programme would be a wage subsidy to employers in the private sector of £40 a week to take on 350,000 long-term unemployed in addition to present staff. That would cost £1·4 billion.
That is a necessarily short summary of our recommendations, which would result in a million extra jobs introduced over a three-year period at an additional cost, when operating fully, of £3·3 billion. I ask the Government to consider these recommendations carefully and not to give a knee-jerk rejection to them. It is not a programme of make-work; it is real work with a socially useful output. The Select Committee report has been carefully researched and, indeed, we sought a second opinion from the London Business School. The Government have not fallen over themselves to accept the report and they talk of the cost involved. I ask them to consider the gravity of the problem and to ask how serious they are in tackling it. After all, what is the cost of the dole queue? It is approaching £20 billion. The sum of £3·3 billion is less than the cost of the Falklands operation and only a third of the cost of defeating the miners' strike.
It is not money down the drain. If there were an extra million workers they would create an enormous amount of added value and we might find that the programme, had paid for itself. The Government must not say there is no alternative. There is an alternative in the report of the Select Committee. The Government must consider the report and give us a debate in Government time. If we adopt this programme, it will bring back hope and raise the morale and spirit of the nation.

Mr. John Prescott: The debate has revealed the House's strong feelings about unemployment and the type of policies that would be pursued if the House decided to reduce it. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) went a long way to express our views about the problems of unemployment and the scale of the necessary changes to the economy if we were committed to full employment. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman will probably not join us in the Lobby this evening. We understand that the various candidates for leadership of the Conservative party have various means of expressing their points of view—loyalty to the Government or the need to be

caring capitalists. The debate has shown the division between those who believe the Government can do something about the level of unemployment and those who do not.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East also mentioned some of the improvements in the economy. We do not dispute that there have been some improvements in the economy and that we need improved productivity and improved investment in our industries. That is our case, too. However, in various parts of the economy, there are major challenges to the traditional attitudes about how to bring about change. We do not argue that change is easy, but changes must be made. What is the role of the Government in the process of change?
The major indictment of this Government and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is that they have reiterated their ideological belief in the supremacy of the market—public expenditure is bad but private expenditure is good. When one talks to private business men one discovers that they depend to a considerable extent on expenditure in public industries. The bus industry is an example. It has collapsed because of deregulation. Orders for buses have fallen from 30,000 to about 9,000. There have been grave difficulties and unemployment in the private sector because of its dependence on orders from the public sector.
Our major argument with the Government is on their belief in a laissez-faire approach. The Government believe that the market is the best determinant of our economy and the levels of unemployment. If the market produces the present record high levels of unemployment, the Government can stand aside and be completely indifferent to the consequences in the knowledge that that it is the result of market forces at work.
We have heard a great deal about the levels of unemployment but I do not intend to go into the various statistics. It is sufficient to say that unemployment is at a record level and has been so almost every month since this Government came to power. Unemployment continues to increase.
The level of unemployment is deliberately maintained by Government policy. A report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that the average level of unemployment in Britain since 1979 has risen above the average for OECD countries. Under previous Governments—Tory and Labour—levels of unemployment always remained at the OECD average. There has been a significant change since 1979. The Library has worked out that that change represents approximately an extra 1 million unemployed. The OECD's conclusions are that the difference can be explained by the Tory Government's different public expenditure programmes.
Those conclusions are serious evidence to substantiate the charge that the Government's policies have caused higher unemployment than has been experienced under previous Tory Governments or indeed Labour Governments, which pursued different policies.
There was a claim from the Conservative Benches that the level of the working population is higher than under the previous Labour Government. That is wrong. I know, Mr. Speaker, that one cannot say it is a lie, but it is factually wrong. The evidence is there for all to see. The working population grew by 40 per cent. in the five years of Labour Government but when we left office more than


500,000 more people were in work. Now, however, well over 1 million fewer people are in work. These are the facts, and we should address ourselves to them.
The Government believed that radical reform was necessary when they came to power. They set the market free and removed the obstacles. They followed a policy of deregulation and privatisation and they reduced employees' rights, trade union representation and gave tax deductions for companies. The result has been a trade deficit. Listening to the Chief Secretary, one would almost believe that there was no trade deficit. The consequences of the Government's policies is a shift from a £4 billion surplus to a £9 billion deficit. They have also produced record unemployment.
The Government have had one success—over profits. The idea of reducing the burden of taxation on companies was to release resources so that we would get investment and jobs. It is interesting to see what happened to profits. Between 1981 and 1984, gross profits secured by companies rose by 45 per cent. As a proportion of gross domestic product, they increased from 9·1 per cent. to 14 per cent.—almost a 6 per cent. shift. Productivity increased, so profitability increased. As a result of that favourable tax treatment, industry received £14·4 billion in extra profits. That is fine if the result is increased employment, increased investment or more training.
The money clearly did not go into wages as there was only a 2 per cent. increase in wages in real terms during that period. The proportion of gross domestic product paid in wages fell by 5 per cent. Industry saved about £5 billion in wages and salaries. It is clear, therefore, that it was not pressure from wages and salaries that caused difficulty with investment.
There was no shortage of money for investment. We were told that the skill and potential of managers would release resources. The trouble is that we do not have such managers in the main. Their flair and foresight led them to put 0·15 per cent. of turnover into training, whereas our competitors invest 2 per cent. The Manpower Services Commission tells us that America spends about £1,500 per head on training, compared to our £200. The Government reduced the regulations, got rid of training boards and closed training centres. The result has been a collapse of training for the very people who, although on the dole now, could be used to advantage when the economy gets moving again.
The decision was made not by unions but by management. Such incompetence is almost unique to Britain. Training is regarded as a cost, not as an investment, in Britain. It is a major problem for our management. It is not as though they are short of money—profits have increased by nearly £15 billion. Where did it go? Perhaps it all went in investment. We know, however, that, far from maintaining the earlier level of investment, we had disinvestment to the tune of £5 billion. That is the scale of the decline. Investment in manufacturing is now lower than it was in 1979.
Those facts are gleaned from Government reports and the Treasury. So where did the money go? Presumably it was invested in property in New York and the like. It is exactly the same problem that an earlier Tory Government found. When they released such forces, the money was invested in property, not in manufacturing.
I have said that wages increased by only 2 per cent. in real terms, but the increase was not across the board. The top 10 per cent. secured a 16 per cent. increase last year,

whereas the lowest 10 per cent. suffered a 5 per cent. fall in income. The people who really benefited are those with share options. It is said that they have had a 180 per cent. increase in salary. They are the people on the Confederation of British industry council. They are the people who, like Sir Terence Beckett, maintain, "You get nowt for nowt." They are putting something like 180 per cent. more into their pockets but complaining about wage increases of 2 per cent.
I am glad to say that things will change. I recently read a CBI News report of what the Prime Minister said. It was she who brought the top people's pay awards to the House on the same day that she introduced legislation to reduce wages for employees in wages councils industries from about £45 a week. They get less in a week than many of those who work in the City get in one hour. CBI News reported:
'Some of them', she admits, 'are being drawn to the City rather than to industry in pursuit of the biggest salaries', and she deplores it.
Is that not evidence of the market system? Is that not what it is supposed to be about. and what we are supposed to applaud?
The report continues:
'But, you know, we cannot do anything about this. We have got to do something about jobs."'
This is the heart of the argument. She says about Government:
'All we can do,' argues the Prime Minister, 'is to create artificial jobs.'
That did not seem to put the Chancellor off when he told us, the last time he came to the House, that unemployment would come down. It was a Budget for jobs, he told us. What were the artificial jobs that he spoke of? An increase in community schemes and in the youth training scheme of nearly 200,000 places. That is how much the Government are fiddling the figures, ready for the election, to get a reduction in unemployment, or what the Prime Minister calls "artificial jobs". We do not dismiss them as artificial.
If we are to return to full employment, there will have to be major changes in the labour market. We cannot produce enough jobs out of manufacturing industry or enough jobs of 40 hours a week. However, all manner of community services are crucial to society. There is an alternative to what the Chancellor said—what was it, a 1 per cent. reduction in wages leading to 150,000 jobs? The highest unemployment has been suffered among people whose wages have decreased. We know that the Treasury fiddled the figures. Warwick university showed that they fiddled the model. The Paymaster General's Department fiddled the information in reports, as I said last night.
Many choices have been presented to the House, whether by wets in the Tory party, the Centre Forwards, the Social Democratic party or the Church, which is called Marxist when it suggests that people should be got back to work. There is a range of choices. The latest is that presented by the Employment Select Committee which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), its Chairman, outlined. It showed where there could be 500,000 jobs in a range of activities at a cost of £3 billion.
It is not that we cannot provide work to enable people to make a useful contribution or that we cannot find the money to pay for it; the decision is political. The Paymaster General came here with the liberal face of the


Tory approach. He had the heart, the concern and the smile, but it was he who rubbished the Select Committee report before it had reached the press. He made it absolutely clear that any possibility of creating work or of reducing unemployment was not an acceptable proposition. In the next 12 months, the Labour party will spell out precisely where the 1 million jobs to which we are committed will come from, how they will be financed and what the consequences will be.
I have heard a lot about housing. The Government have produced 2,000 fewer houses per week for every week that they have been in office than Labour. If we used the £6 billion which local authorities have to meet housing needs, 500,000 building workers could be put to work. That is a positive way in which to get people back to work. The point at issue here is whether the Government have any desire to do anything to reduce unemployment.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I was most nearly moved to audible dissent when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) went over the old ground and said that we are deliberately keeping unemployment up, but I am quite sure that he does not believe that. The debate is between a range of opinions about what led to unemployment doubling under the Labour Government, to it increasing again while we have been in office, and what is to be done now to get the figures down.
I almost agreed with the hon. Gentleman in parts of his speech. He was worried about training in industry, and about the effects of extremely high salaries in the City. I look forward to discussing with him or hearing from him what he proposes to do about either problem. However, he will appreciate my difficulty. I have 12 minutes in which to respond to policy contributions from three directions. If I can exercise that self-discipline which I usually fail to achieve when winding up debates, to do justice to all of the sides I must try to give about five minutes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), about two minutes to the Liberal party and about five minutes to the Labour party. That would not do justice to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Bulmer), who made an extremely thoughtful speech, with the bulk of which I entirely agreed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East first brought me into the Government. I spent a time serving as a Whip in his Whips Office. I still listen to my right hon. Friend's speeches with the slight feeling of someone listening to a former headmaster giving an end of term report. I am glad to say that our personal relations are somewhat friendlier than that.
I listened to the strategy my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East set out. He was the only speaker in the debate who set out in detail the policy options that he would propose to deal with the problem. The Opposition Front Bench certainly did not come forward with any policy. My right hon. Friend did not launch a diatribe against Government policies. Instead he made a number of points with which I wholly agree.

Looking at the policies he was advocating, one can only conclude that the Government amendment should be supported.
I agree with my right hon. Friend's remarks about international co-operation. He described the need for that co-operation between developed countries all of which suffer from the same dire problems of persistently high unemployment. He gave credit to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in their efforts to gain greater co-operation and stability in exchange rates and so on.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the commitment to growth that is required. I would point out to him that there have been five years of sustained growth in this country. That growth is high by our own historical standards and high in relation to that of our neighbours. That growth must be sustained and if possible taken beyond the present 3 per cent. level. My right hon. Friend talked about the importance of backing manufacturing industry in connection with growth. I agree that it is essential to boost the wealth-creating capacity of manufacturing industry to sustain the level of growth which my right hon. Friend mentioned.
I agree with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest—a point was also raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—that we must not look to support declining manufacturing industry as a means of eliminating our present unemployment problems. Technological advance in that area means that we may be able to generate more wealth but we will not return to the days of mass unemployment on the workshop floor. That is why the Government have put the emphasis on the service industries, tourism and leisure, small businesses and self-employment. Those will be the growth areas in the economy over the next few years.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest in his remarks about industrial policy. The difficulty, of course, is to achieve the balance, which he was trying to describe, between supporting industry without intervening or subsidising those sectors which are failing and declining.
I agree that we must protect our industries against unfair foreign competition. We must also maintain a positive public sector purchasing policy. However, neither my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest nor I would like to advocate protectionism as that could lead to the defence of weakened industries.
I support my hon. Friend's views on regional policy. Not before time have we made regional policy more rational and concentrated its employment-generating effects on more closely targeted areas. In response to my hon. Friend, I can say that I am now closely connected with inner city policy. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not just the amount of money that is important but how that money is put to best effect. Central Government are now putting £670 million into the inner cities and we must ensure that that is targeted in such a way that the residents in those areas are aware of a great improvement in job prospects. I could continue to relate areas of agreement with my hon. Friend but I wish to stress that the debate conspicuously lacked any policy proposals from the Labour party of the kind my right hon. and hon. Friends mentioned.


The Government are, however, examining planning constraints that inhibit enterprise, labour mobility and so on. We are also in favour of continuing the expansion of the road programme. Planning and design problems would lead anybody looking at the road programme to realise that it cannot be accelerated more than it is now. The trouble with capital spending, and the reason why it is not the simple answer that the Opposition propose, is that the programme is not labour-intensive enough in modern circumstances to be a complete answer to the problem. There is no great gulf between myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) made his contribution on behalf of the Liberal party. The hon. Gentleman is consistent in his speeches at Liberal party conferences and thereafter, as he always returns to the subject of incomes. We must accept that one of the difficulties in analysing the problems of unemployment is that unit labour costs continue to rise. We are not as successful in keeping labour costs down as are some of our major competitors. The hon. Gentleman will not carry me back to the policies of the 1970s to which he is plainly committed.
The hon. Gentleman came up with a new phrase today. He said that he was in favour of some form of restrictive pay strategy. The hon. Gentleman normally calls a spade a spade and talks about a statutory incomes policy. He was anxious to make it clear that that would not apply to anybody in dispute at the moment as he is in favour of a £4 billion settlement for a wide group of public sector workers who might consider his proposal as a kind of threat. The hon. Gentleman has not solved the problem of how to make a statutory incomes policy stick.
The Labour party did not address itself to incomes. That topic was notably absent from Opposition Members' speeches, although there was a mention about City salaries which I accept is a fair subject to complain about.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who led for the Opposition, presumably had a hand in the choice of this debate and I assumed that he would put forward an alternative economic strategy which would give us a guide as to how the Labour party would tackle unemployment if it were in office. The right hon. Gentleman did nothing of the kind. He spent a great deal of time simply having a knockabout swipe at the unemployment figures, something that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) normally does better. When I tied the right hon. Gentleman down to why he said that the Government were fiddling the unemployment figures, he cited the changes that were made in 1982 for claimants, when the unemployed were no longer required to register at jobcentres. That was explained at the time and made a difference of about 100,000 to the unemployment figure. From 1983 we also said that men over 60 who were registering to keep their national insurance credits, and sometimes to get benefit, no longer had to register. That made a difference of another 162,000 to the figure. Even with these reductions, I cannot see how the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook reached his figures. The right hon. Gentleman knows why the Government did that.

Mr. Prescott: They were fiddling the figures.

Mr. Clarke: It was a tedious task for former school teachers and former bank managers to sign on at benefit offices simply to get credited with their national insurance

contributions. Is the shadow Chancellor's solution to the problem of getting accurate unemployment figures to bring back that meaningless nonsense of everyone having to traipse to the benefit office once a week to sign on? I have already explained the difference in the figures and the right hon. Gentleman cannot reach the figure he was claiming.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot ignore the labour force survey. When we produced the labour force survey and compared it with the number of claimants, it showed that 870,000 people in 1984 were not included in the count of claimants looking for work. It also showed that there were 940,000 people included in the claimant count who either had a job or were not seeking one.
The result of the labour force survey is that the unemployment figure is somewhat below 3·4 million. I have always candidly described those figures at Question Time as never being exact and have always said that we should look at ways of improving the calculation of the figures. The main constraint, when we try to obtain more accurate figures, comes from hon. Members who make easy, knockabout speeches trying to claim that we are fiddling the figures.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I have no time to give way. I would give way to the right hon. Gentleman if I had more time because, when I looked for policies in his speech, all I could see was his reference to directed reflation.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman does not want to hear about directed reflation.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I will give way and see whether the right hon. Gentleman wishes to improve on the policy he put forward of directed reflation coupled with a commitment that the Labour Government would not raise the standard rate of income tax. That was the policy which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury analysed and so reduced the right hon. Gentleman to silence. The right hon. Gentleman has a minute in which to put a little more flesh on those pathetic bones.

Mr. Hattersley: I confirm both those policies. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has spent most of the time in his consideration of my speech discussing the unemployment statistics. Is it or is it not a fact that if the unemployment figure was calculated on the pre-Tebbit basis it would be 3·8 million and not 3·4 million?

Mr. Clarke: I guess that it would be about 3.6 million, because the right hon. Gentleman would include many people who are not unemployed but who go into the benefit office to obtain credit for their national insurance contributions. It is no good the shadow Chancellor arguing about the figures. Our policies on the service industries and tourism and the direct measures that we are taking at huge cost are more effective than anything he put forward.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 293.

Division No. 72]
[7 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Alton, David


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter






Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hancock, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hardy, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barron, Kevin
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beith, A. J.
Haynes, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Home Robertson, John


Blair, Anthony
Hoyle, Douglas


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
John, Brynmor


Bruce, Malcolm
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Caborn, Richard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Kennedy, Charles


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Campbell, Ian
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kirkwood, Archy


Canavan, Dennis
Lambie, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lamond, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Leadbitter, Ted


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leighton, Ronald


Clarke, Thomas
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clay, Robert
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clelland, David Gordon
Litherland, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Livsey, Richard


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
Loyden, Edward


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McCartney, Hugh


Conlan, Bernard
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Craigen, J. M.
Maclennan, Robert


Crowther, Stan
McNamara, Kevin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McTaggart, Robert


Cunningham, Dr John
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Marek, Dr John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Martin, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Meadowcroft, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Michie, William


Dubs, Alfred
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ellis, Raymond
O'Brien, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Neill, Martin


Ewing, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fatchett, Derek
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Faulds, Andrew
Park, George


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Parry, Robert


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fisher, Mark
Pendry, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Penhaligon, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter


Forrester, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Foulkes, George
Radice, Giles


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Randall, Stuart


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Redmond, Martin


Garrett, W. E.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


George, Bruce
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Gould, Bryan
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Gourley, Harry
Robertson, George





Rogers, Allan
Straw, Jack


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Rowlands, Ted
Tinn, James


Ryman, John
Torney, Tom


Sedgemore, Brian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Weetch, Ken


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Welsh, Michael


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
White, James


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wilson, Gordon


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Soley, Clive
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Steel, Rt Hon David



Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. Sean Hughes and


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Ron Davies.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Clegg, Sir Walter


Aitken, Jonathan
Cockeram, Eric


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Simon


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cope, John


Amess, David
Corrie, John


Ancram, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount


Arnold, Tom
Critchley, Julian


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Baldry, Tony
Dunn, Robert


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dykes, Hugh


Batiste, Spencer
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Evennett, David


Benyon, William
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Best, Keith
Fallon, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Farr, Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Favell, Anthony


Blackburn, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Body, Sir Richard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fletcher, Alexander


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fox, Marcus


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Franks, Cecil


Bright, Graham
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brinton, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fry, Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gale, Roger


Bruinvels, Peter
Galley, Roy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Buck, Sir Antony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Burt, Alistair
Gorst, John


Butcher, John
Gow, Ian


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Gower, Sir Raymond


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Greenway, Harry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Chapman, Sydney
Grist, Ian


Chope, Christopher
Ground, Patrick


Churchill, W. S.
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hampson, Dr Keith






Hanley, Jeremy
Lord, Michael


Hannam, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Hargreaves, Kenneth
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Harris, David
Macfarlane, Neil


Harvey, Robert
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Maclean, David John


Hawksley, Warren
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Hayes, J.
McQuarrie, Albert


Hayward, Robert
Madel, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Major, John


Heddle, John
Malone, Gerald


Henderson, Barry
Marlow, Antony


Hickmet, Richard
Mather, Carol


Hicks, Robert
Maude, Hon Francis


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hind, Kenneth
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Holt, Richard
Merchant, Piers


Hordern, Sir Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Howard, Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Miscampbell, Norman


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Moate, Roger


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Murphy, Christopher


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Neubert, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Newton, Tony


Irving, Charles
Nicholls, Patrick


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Parris, Matthew


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Portillo, Michael


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Key, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Powley, John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Prior, Rt Hon James


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Knowles, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lang, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lawrence, Ivan
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lee, John (Pendle)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lilley, Peter
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela





St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thornton, Malcolm


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tracey, Richard


Silvester, Fred
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Speller, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spence, John
Walden, George


Spencer, Derek
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walters, Dennis


Squire, Robin
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stern, Michael
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Younger, Rt Hon George


Temple-Morris, Peter



Terlezki, Stefan
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. Tony Durant.


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes that the Government's success in the battle against inflation has already brought with it nearly five years of soundly based economic growth and rising living standards; applauds the achievement of manufacturing industry in raising productivity to record levels; and welcomes the continuing rise in the number of people in work.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill (Committee)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): I beg to move,
That leave be given to the Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill to sit with two members to-morrow and thereafter.
I regret that I have found it necessary to take up the time of the House with the motion. Perhaps I should explain the background.
On 13 May 1985, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill was given a Second Reading by a majority of 136. The Bill's main purpose is to extend Felixstowe dock: it is a controversial proposal and a number of local interest groups have petitioned against it. It began its Committee stage before an Opposed Private Bill Committee, consisting of four members, on 3 December. The Committee has so far taken evidence on 14 days and the promoters have indicated to me that a further 12 days may be necessary to complete proceedings.
Both in December and since the House resumed in January, the Committee has been in difficulties over its quorum. The original membership was the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). On 29 January the hon. Member for Cynon Valley asked to be replaced on the Committee and the Committee adjourned pending the nomination of a replacement by the Committee of Selection. The Committee of Selection, exceptionally, acceded to her request to be replaced, and put the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on the Committee in her place. However, neither the hon. Member for Worsley nor the hon. Member for Leeds, Central has attended the Committee since it adjourned on 29 January.
I understand that attempts have since been made to find Opposition Members willing to serve on the Committee, but they have been unsuccessful and the Committee now lacks a quorum. Under Standing Order No. 121, it cannot sit in the absence of more than one of its members, except by leave of the House. That leave is what the House will give if it passes this motion.
My responsibility, as Chairman of Ways and Means, is to ensure that arrangements are made to allow the procedures of the House to apply to this Bill: in particular, the promoters of the Bill, and the petitioners against it, should have a proper opportunity to make their case heard in Committee. I believe that it would be a harmful precedent if the progress of a private Bill were to be inhibited in this way, since it would call into question the very procedures which Parliament itself had established. If the Bill were not to be allowed to proceed, it might follow that any private Bill could be blocked if Members of one of the main parties in the House were to refuse to serve on the Committee. I doubt whether that is what the House wishes.
In all the circumstances, allowing the Committee to proceed with a reduced quorum seems to be the most realistic option before the House. Such motions have been passed on previous occasions—in 1890, in 1897 and much more recently in 1965—when Committees on private Bills were unable to proceed for lack of a quorum.

The motion does not prevent other members being added to the Committee by the Committee of Selection; nor does it prevent the members of the Committee who have been absent from attending meetings of the Committee. If those concerned could enable the Bill to proceed in either of those ways, I think it would be far more satisfactory. But, unless and until they do so, the need to give both the promoters and the petitioners a full and proper hearing in Committee seems to me overriding.
I hope that the House will share that view and will support the motion.

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The House may wonder why a Scottish Member has suddenly taken an interest in Felixstowe. I must confess that I am not too much concerned with the merits or demerits of the Bill—

Mr. Tim Yeo: Sit down then.

Mr. Hamilton: I shall not take instructions on that or any other matter from the hon. Gentleman.
My attention was drawn to the matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) who was elected to the House to represent a constituency in South Wales. There are manifold problems in her constituency, as everyone should know. Moreover, she was appointed as a member of the Committee dealing with the Gas Bill. She judged that her constituents were more interested in the Gas Bill and the purloining of public assets by private enterprise than with what might or might not happen in Felixstowe. She therefore came to me. I do not know why she came to me. Perhaps it was because she is of the same rebellious nature as I am. I advised her to quit the Committee. She sought to make inquiries as to what that might imply. The Committees for private Members' Bills are the only Committees in the House at which attendance is compulsory. If one does not attend, one might be fined. I said to her, "Go down in history, Ann, and be bloody well fined." She wisely took my advice and the consequences are here before us.
Let me make it clear to the Chairman of Ways and Means, for whom I have a great respect and affection, that I know that he is saddled with the problem. By a decision of the House, he is given important discretionary powers and duties to deal with private Bills. That is the matter with which I propose to deal, not the merits of the Bill, although I am bound to say that considerable commercial interests are involved and, if the Bill goes through, substantial profits are to be made from the results.
I took the precaution of looking up in "Erskine May" the history of private Bill procedure, which is briefly referred to on page 858 of the 20th edition. It explains how the practice of private Bills grew out of ancient practice, long before adult enfranchisement, whereby the only way that people who were not represented in the House could make representations to it was by petition.
The rights of petitioners and the power of the House of Commons to deal with petitions were set out in two resolutions of the House of Commons in 1669. That beats the precedents quoted by the Chairman of Ways and Means by about 100 years or so. Those rights were


embodied in two resolutions, one dealing with the right to petition and the right of the House to receive petitions, and the other with the right and privilege of the House to judge and determine how far such petitions were fit or unfit to be received. "Erskine May" says:
These two resolutions of general import formed part of a group of resolutions, the rest of which related specifically to trading matters in the East Indies, and reflected a serious quarrel between the two Houses (the 'Skinner Dispute.')
That is still going on. "Erskine May" continues:
In an effort to settle the controversy, the House later acceded to a royal command that the entire group of resolutions be erased from the Journal.
After the first Reform Act, there was a vast increase in the number of petitions presented to the House, so a series of Standing Orders were adopted in 1842 to inhibit the debate on petitions. Consequently, the numbers significantly declined.
"Erskine May" goes on to say that from about 1700 a growing number of private Bills began to be produced and were concerned with matters such as the building and construction of toll roads—we shall be getting back to those soon—canals, railways, reservoirs, and so on, with local government matters. In modern times, most private Bills are those promoted by local authorities and statutory bodies for the better fulfilment of their functions
and the conferring of powers that the ordinary law does not give them.
In passing private Bills, Parliament still exercises its legislative functions, but its proceedings also assume a judicial character. In those proceedings, the members of the Committees are generally bored to tears by the vested legal interests who are paid by the hour —unlike us. Hon. Members sit there, but the lawyers present the case for and against, and have a vested interest in prolonging the agony.
The various kinds of private Bills are dealt with at length in "Erskine May" and I do not propose to bore the House by going through them. The Chairman of Ways and Means is given considerable duties and discretions in dealing with the passage of private Bills, dating from 1848 and laid down in various standing orders. I shall quote again from "Erskine May", on page 1002, which deals with a quorum—our problem tonight. It says:
The committee may not proceed if more than one of the members is absent, unless by special leave of the House; and no member of a committee on an opposed private bill may absent himself, except in case of illness, or by leave of the House. Members absenting themselves are reported to the House at its next sitting.
Formerly the House ordered such members to attend the next sitting of the committee, but if their absence was occasioned by illness, domestic anxiety, or other sufficient cause, no such order was made.
As far as I can gather, there is no fixed limit to the number
that can constitute a quorum in a private Bill Committee, but this Committee happens to have four members, two Labour and two Conservative, the Chairman being a Conservative. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley was not asked but told to serve on the Committee, as is the practice.
I recall that when I first came to the House my Scottish Whip was a venerable grey-haired old gentleman called George Mathers. We used to describe him as God's PPS, he was so gentle. Very soon he came to see me, put his arm around my shoulder, as I remember, and implied that I had been singled out for preferential treatment. It went to my head right away, but that is the closest I have got to any official appointment. I served on that Committee

and I vowed that I would never serve on another—I have not. I warn new hon. Members that if their Whip comes around and puts his arm around the shoulders of one of them, he should tell him to go to hell. This procedure is absurd.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley properly resented being compelled to attend this nonsense. She is a rebellious, stubborn character—a lady of my own heart. I encouraged her in all her rebellious ways, and I want to put on record one or two facts which might be less amusing to the House. The Chairman of Ways and Means has had to overcome the difficulty presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). No doubt he had appropriate advice from whatever quarters.
I do not know whether there was agreement through the usual channels, but I rather suspect that there might have been and I would not be surprised if there were, but even if there were not it does not matter a hoot to me. I shall state my views on the matter because it is reprehensible that the Chairman of Ways and Means has been authorised by the House to adopt a procedure whereby, if his motion is accepted, we might have the prospect of the Bill going through Committee and its remaining stages by the co-operation of two Conservative Members. They would be sitting in cahoots upstairs deciding that a private company, which has made considerable financial contributions to the Tory party funds—[Interruption.] That prospect is now possible, indeed probable, if the motion is accepted. I have no wish to criticise the Chairman of Ways and Means. He is going through the correct procedures.

Mr. Terry Lewis: My hon. Friend is probably not aware that the system he has just described became even more ludicrous. The Chairman of Ways and Means has already said that I have not attended any meetings. That is true. I received a letter from the Private Bill Office saying that I had been appointed to the Committee, and a certificate which I had to sign to say that I would not vote upon anything on which I had not heard evidence or attended. I was blithely told in the letter of appointment that 14 days of evidence had already been given. That is ludicrous, as I imagine my hon. Friend would agree.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend underlines the need for the House to provide the appropriate machinery to have a good long look at the way in which we deal with private Bills. I see the Chairman of Ways and Means nodding assent, and I think that the sooner we get down to that the better because the dangers, or potential dangers, in this procedure are underlined by the passage of this particular Bill.
I believe that over the past few years this House has increasingly been dominated by outside private financial interests. The stench is growing more objectionable and disturbing every week. I have talked about the company involved in the Bill going through the House. That company has made contributions to Tory party funds for some years. For the year ending December 1977 it paid £10,000; for the year ending December 1978 it paid £15,050; for 1979 the figure was £15,000; for 1980, index linked obviously, the figure was £20,250. For 1981 the figure was £21,000.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I bet they did not have a postal ballot.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. For 1982 the figure was £26,000; in 1983, election year, it was £60,000 and in 1984 it was £33,000. That is democracy. For all I know the Government might have incited the company to bring forward a Bill—

Mr. William Cash: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.

Mr. Hamilton: The Government might have incited the company to bring forward a private Bill by saying, "The procedures of the House are such that we can guarantee that the Bill will get through and therefore your profits will be increased and, as a consequence, you can make bigger contributions to our funds". That is typical of what is happening in the House and what has been increasingly happening over the past six years.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I say to the House and the country it is time that this kind of corruption ended. That is why we intend to oppose it tonight.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: There is a certain kind of Committee formed from Members of the House which is of a judicial nature rather than of the normal political nature. That category certainly includes private Bill Committees and the Standing Orders Committee. Whereas in a normal Standing Committee the complexion of the Committee roughly reflects the party strengths on the Floor of the House, and indeed the Committee of Selection usually appoints Members who have expressed a particular interest in the subject in Second Reading debates—

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: What is the point of order?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the hon. Lady had been listening to the proceedings she would have discovered that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) had finished speaking and that Mr. Deputy Speaker called me.
As I was saying, on a Standing Committee there is a political composition of the Committee. On those Committees which have a judicial function, that most certainly is not so. Moreover, I understand that the Committee of Selection does its best to exclude from such a Committee those who have a personal or constituency interest in its outcome. I should have thought that it was essential for the fair and just dealing between this House and petitioners that private Bill Committees should proceed with reasonable expedition.
A private Bill confers upon an individual or a body corporate of some kind special rights which are not inherent in public general law and which are not commercially available, or it deprives other people of their normal rights under public general law. Therefore, it is essential that those whose rights and interests are affected should be entitled to petition against such private Bills if they want to—but, thank heavens, not necessarily employing lawyers to put their case for them. The important thing is that they can appear in person before such a Committee or, if they want to, they can hire a lawyer. For the private individual, that is a worrying and time-consuming process and it can also be very expensive.
If therefore, members of the Committee abdicate their duty to this House and to those affected affected by the legislation, the result can only be quite unpredictable costs on those whose rights are potentially affected by the legislation, and chaos in their personal lives and in the organisation of their business affairs, because there is no way in which they can tell when their petition will be heard and when they will have an opportunity to speak in favour of it before the Committee.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Does not this debate show the difficulty and ethical problem that arises when any person who is a contributor to any political party seeks to put a Bill through this House? Regardless of which party or which issue is involved, the principle is the same. If people are known financial supporters—

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Bermingham: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen. Regardless of party, person or matter, the principle is the same. Is that not the ethical problem being demonstrated in this debate?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I can only disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Ordinary duties are carried out by ordinary citizens—not hon. Members—such as serving on a jury. If the person being tried is of a known political persuasion, that does not mean that the juror is entitled to allow that to interfere with the discharge of his duty. That is the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Why is it that an ordinary citizen performing a judicial service, which it is his duty to do, can discharge that honourably and correctly, while a Member of this House cannot? Those are the bones of the matter—it has nothing to do with political contributions—[Interruption.] The Opposition appear not to want to hear what I am saying, for reasons that can only be disreputable.
It would be as wrong for Members of this House to allow facts within their knowledge about political contributions to affect their behaviour on a Committee dealing with a private Bill as it would be for a juror to allow such considerations to affect his judgment—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members disagree, they are attacking the whole basis of the jury system. They know that I am not a lawyer; I am merely stating what everyone knows to be the basis of justice in this country.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a slight fallacy in his argument? The courts go through only one manning procedure, while there are two alternatives for promoting this sort of enterprise—either a private Bill or a public inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman is righty concerned about the rights of the petitioners. However, it is far easier for individuals to appear at and make representations to a public inquiry—and through that, the inspector and, finally, the Minister to the House—than it is to go through the private Bill procedure. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the rights of petitioners, he should advise the company to withdraw the Bill and ask for a local public inquiry. The issues will then be aired by local people who will have the best possible opportunity to object. It can then come to the House for political decision.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am not in the least concerned with the merits or otherwise of the Bill. The hon.


Gentleman's argument could fairly be deployed on Second or Third Reading. We are tonight discussing something wholly different—whether hon. Members who are appointed to a private Bill Committee are entitled to exercise political likes or dislikes to frustrate the purpose for which that Committee was appointed. Of course, the Committee is appointed only if the Bill is opposed by petitioners.
I am firmly of the opinion—which I hope will be widely shared, irrespective of political affiliation—that when hon. Members are appointed to a Committee with a judicial function, they must act judiciously for the honour of this House and the expedition of its business—in fairness judicially both to the objectors via petitions and to the promoters of the Bill. That is their clear duty and they should discharge it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question; he may wish to consult his hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. Is it true that the chairman of the Conservative party wrote to some hon. Members asking them to vote on Second Reading of the Bill when it first came before the House? If that is true, does not the House deserve some explanation?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether it is true or not— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question, so perhaps he will do me the courtesy of listening to my answer.
As the chairman of the Conservative party did not address any such letter to me, I can tell the hon. Gentleman quite truthfully that I do not know the answer to his question. His point might be relevant to a Second or Third Reading debate, but it is wholly irrelevant to my submission, namely, that hon. Members appointed to a judicial Committee, whether a private Bill Committee, a Standing Orders Committee, or whatever, have a duty to act faithfully, impartially and judiciously and not from political judgment or spite. That is an absolutely clear obligation. I hope that, on reflection, that obligation is accepted, irrespective of the political affiliations of hon. Members.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), I did not get a friendly tap on the shoulder or even a friendly telephone call; all I had was a postcard in the internal mail telling me that I had been appointed to the Committee considering the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill.
I had no idea what sort of task was being imposed on me until I turned up for the first sitting and was asked to sign a declaration, which had previously been sent to me in the post, stating that neither I nor my constituents had any financial interest in the subject under discussion. It is interesting that that is the only occasion on which an hon. Member is expected to make such a declaration. It demonstrates the importance that the House has given to those procedures.
I, too, have been searching through "Erskine May". I am pleased to say that some of the things that I read about have not been visited upon me as a result of absenting myself from the Committee. There is a whole paragraph on the strictures that can be applied to hon. Members who refuse to attend. Page 993 states:

If the Committee of Selection is dissatisfied with a Member's excuse, it will require him to serve upon a committee, when his attendance will become obligatory, and if necessary will be enforced by the House.
The fact that the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers have not attempted to enforce any such measures upon me shows that the House needs reform.
"Erskine May" states that in 1845
a Member did not attend a committee on a group of railway bills to which he had been nominated, and his absence was accordingly reported to the House in the prescribed manner. He stated to the House that a correspondence had taken place between the Committee of Selection and himself, in which he had informed them that he was already serving on two public committees, and that his serving on the railway group committee was incompatible with those duties. But the House ordered him to attend the railway committee.
In 1846 the Committee of Selection, not being satisfied with the excuses of Mr. Smith O'Brien" —
there is copious correspondence in Hansard between Mr. O'Brien, the Speaker and Officers of the House—
nominated him a member of a committee on a group of railways bills in the usual manner. He did not attend the committee; his absence was accordingly reported to the House; and he was ordered to attend the committee on the following day. Being again absent, his absence was again reported; he attended in his place in the House and stated that he refused to attend the committee; upon which he was declared guilty of a contempt, and was committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms.
I am sure that the Serjeant at Arms is much relieved that he has not been called upon to fulfil the same function with me. Mr. Smith O'Brien's reason for not attending the Committee was that, as an Irish Member, he was not prepared to vote on matters that did not concern Ireland. He was not prepared to vote on matters relating to Scotland and England. He did not mention Wales.

Mr. Alistair Burt: It was not worth mentioning.

Hon. Members: Put that on the record.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am sure that the comment of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) was heard by everybody.

Mr. Burt: rose—

Mrs. Clwyd: I hope that the people of Wales at the next election will treat the Conservatives in the way that they deserve.
Mr. Smith O'Brien, a Member for Limerick, spent 25 days in prison. Apparently the House of Commons had a prison at that time. It may still be here. He was subsequently discharged, but only after a motion was put forward by some of his hon. Friends. I hope that if anything similar happens to me, my hon. Friends will do likewise.
In reference to Mr. O'Brien's position, Mr. Disraeli said:
Are we prepared to support this compulsory principle by which we shall enforce the attendance of Members on Committees? I hope not, more especially as the circumstances which had justified that principle are rapidly disappearing . The railway business at one time was supposed to last for seven years; but that anticipated pressure has disappeared, and, having disappeared, it is now open to the House to consider the expediency of enforcing the principle of compulsory attendance; a consideration which, if calmly and dispassionately entered into, might put an end to an occurrence which we all deplore.
Nothing has happened since to change a procedure that existed in 1846.


Despite the tempting invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central, who has given me most valuable advice during the two years that I have been in the House—

Mr. Robert Atkins: Three years.

Mrs. Clwyd: No, two years. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central said that this was a way of getting my name into the history books. Tempting though that suggestion may have been, my main reason for taking a stand on this issue is that the procedures are archaic and out of date. We should change the procedures and this is the only way to do so. Since I have been an hon. Member, I have believed that the working practices of the House need urgent root and branch reform.
The working hours and conditions, methods of debate, voting procedures, the operation of Select and Standing Committees, the lobbying system and the continuing absence of television have all been criticised. But change has not been given the necessary support by Parliament or any political party, although individual hon. Members have argued for such reforms. I hope that hon. Members will not be expected in future to experience the routine, rigorous and tedious demands on the time of hon. Members the opposed private Bill system puts upon them.
During the six weeks that I have been involved on the Bill, the issues have been about the rights of hon. Members on Committees and the practices and procedures of such Committees. For three days a week, for six weeks, we made our way down the corridors of the House of Lords, past the portraits of Shaftesbury and the hanging judge, Judge Jeffreys, to Committee Room 5. There were four of us and the chairman had a casting vote. I cast no aspersions on the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). Throughout the procedure he has been a fair and just Chairman. Anything that I say tonight is not a criticism of the hon. Gentleman.
We have listened for long and tedious hours to the promoters of the Bill arguing their case, in excruciating detail, for being allowed to extend their docks into an area of outstanding natural beauty. The proceedings are semi-judicial in nature, because a Committee on a private Bill is not concerned merely with scrutinising the details and drafting of the Bill, as a Committee on a public Bill is or ought to be. Its primary duties are to decide whether the Bill is justified at all, whether the promoters really need it, and whether it is the only way of furthering their aims.
An onerous task is imposed on the Committee. It has to decide whether it is to the public advantage that the Bill should pass into law. Above all, it has to assess the claims of the opponents of the Bill—the petitioners against the Bill—who appear before it.
As has been mentioned, the company in question is owned by European Ferries, which was the sixth largest contributor to Tory party funds in 1983. It is not inconceivable that the former chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) might—I merely make the suggestion—encourage the company, by a nod and a wink, to embark on this extremely costly exercise because it could be sure of success.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mrs. Clwyd: No, I am not giving way.
As one of the spokesmen for the objectors put it during our hearings,
The company has chosen this route because it considers that it is its best chance of success.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mrs. Clwyd: No. The hon. Member will have the opportunity to make his speech.
Hon. Members on the Committee are expected, on the evidence, to determine, in effect, United Kingdom port policy and environmental policy. If the Committee agrees to the extension of dock facilities at Felixstowe, there is no doubt that, as my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members know, ports such as Southampton, London, Tilbury, Liverpool and others will lose jobs as a result.
It is important that I should explain some of the background because it illustrates the task that we are putting on members of the Committee. To what extent a Channel tunnel will make the expansion of Felixstowe necessary seems not to have entered—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is beginning to stray into the merits of the Bill. She has been in order while talking about the difficulties of hon. Members serving on the Committee and the difficulties of obtaining a quorum, but it is not in order to discuss the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be reasonable for my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) to develop her argument as an illustration? I am sure that you will accept that, although we are dealing with a Felixstowe Bill, the principle involved will extend to the proceedings on the Channel tunnel Bill when that comes before us. If a change in the quorum is made now, there may be arguments about changing the quorum for that Bill. I should have thought that as long as my hon. Friend is using her argument as an illustration she will not be too far out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Discussion of general principles and certain passing references are in order, but detailed discussion of the merits of the Bill is not in order.

Mrs. Clwyd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for pointing out that I was straying from the main points of the debate. I was making a passing reference and I hope to pass quickly through that reference.
It is pertinent to investigate the relevance of a Channel link to future container traffic. I was told in answer to a parliamentary question on 29 January that the Government would not publish information about their assessment of how much container traffic would use the link. If the Government refuse to give crucial and pertinent information, how can four, three or two hon. Members —or even one hon. Member—decide whether it is in the national interest for Felixstowe docks to expand their container facilities? The company's whole case is built on the potential container handling capacity in the United Kingdom.
If the expansion went ahead, land designated by the Department of the Environment as an area of outstanding natural beauty would be used. The Bill is opposed by all the important environmental groups in Suffolk. The estuary is internationally important for the protection of thousands of wading birds there. Those considerations and


others have been spelt out in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) and other hon. Members on several occasions.
Hon. Members appointed to the Committee on the Bill are being asked to determine whether it is in the national interest that the Bill should pass into law. I hope that I have illustrated that that is an important and difficult task. To put that burden on perhaps two hon. Members is unfair, unnecessary and unjust.
In normal circumstances an applicant seeks planning consent from a council. The company in question is making an application for a project that is a departure from the local structure plan, especially as it is in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Such companies should be compelled to seek planning consent. They know that by bypassing the system in this way they have a tremendous advantage, especially with the present Government.
The remedy would be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but she is again straying into the merits of the Bill. Most of what she is saying is in order, but she must not discuss the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is inevitable that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has to deal with aspects of the Bill. She is arguing that the procedure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not arguing with the ruling of the Chair. I am sure that the hon. Lady has taken the point that I made.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am moving on to the procedure. We must look at the alternatives. The remedy would be for the company to go through the established planning machinery —to apply for planning permission, to go to appeal, if necessary—and only when permission is granted should it be possible for it to come to Parliament to have some of the minor remaining difficulties ironed out.
Parliament is well equipped to discuss and settle the principle, but it should not have to get bogged down with the minutiae. I argue that hon. Members who have been involved in the Bill are being bogged down in the minutiae. My proposal would remove from Parliament matters that normally and properly come within planning law.
The Bill is an attempt to short circuit planning controls, thereby making it a favoured case. In other words, it seeks planning permission by the back door.
It was totally unfair to expect two hon. Members, possibly even of the same party—I am sure they would not wish to be put in that situation—to make that kind of decision. If the matter became the responsibility of a planning inspector, the examination of the issues could be even more detailed. There would be a very cogent cross-examination of witnesses, and the Secretary of State could appoint independent assessors to assist the inspector. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware, but in Private Opposed Bill Committees hon. Members are hearing subjective evidence from both sides—from the objectors and from the promoters. We are not able to obtain the experts' objective advice, which is necessary if we are to reach a considered decision. If a local planning inquiry were taking place, it is likely that the local objectors would

be able to attend it. They would not be expected to crowd into the small space that we allow the public to occupy in Private Opposed Bill Committees.
I have therefore been very much disturbed by such considerations. To add to my reservation about the procedure, there is the ridiculous requirement that attendance by members appointed to such a Committee is compulsory. Although I have tested "Erskine May" on penalties, I have not as yet incurred any of them. The requirement means that, whatever important business is taking place on the Floor of the House or elsewhere, an hon. Member who is placed on such a Committee cannot attend to it. The hon. Members involved are virtually tied to the Committee, spending weeks, or months in this instance, on a matter in which neither they nor their constituents have any interest.
If I and other Committee members considered that we had matters which were more important to attend to, we would be reported to the House and our names would appear on the Order Paper. Even if we were attending the Committee during that day, but we were absent for over an hour, we would be reported on the Order Paper the next day. That is a ridiculous pursuit.
Parliament must re-examine its procedures so that wealthy companies do not obtain planning permission by the back door through private Bill routes. They are able to obtain permission for their proposals without them receiving proper scrutiny. They bypass ministerial decisions on important matters of national policy. Neither should hon. Members' time be spent helping barristers to get richer at the expense of matters which directly affect their constituents, such as mine, in areas of low income, bad housing and high unemployment. Those are the main reasons why I resigned from the Committee. I did so in an attempt to focus attention on a need to reform the present outdated and potentially corrupt system.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I thank the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for her kind reference to my chairmanship of the Committee, but I cannot find it in my heart to agree with most of what she has had to say. It may well be true that the procedures of this House need to be examined and reviewed. I am sure there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel that there are many aspects of the House that should be looked into from time to time. However, that is not the matter before us tonight.
I shall address myself to the procedures of this House and the ability of right hon. and hon. Members to exercise unprejudiced judgments on behalf of the House. The latter is something which we are all asked to do on many occasions in many places on behalf of our colleagues on both sides of the House. I resent bitterly the innuendo that has been present in this Chamber tonight. It has been present on occasions in the Committee, and certainly we have heard it tonight in its most unpleasant and unacceptable form.
I say on behalf of myself and my colleagues who sit with me on the Committee—I believe I can say it, too, on behalf of the other members of this Committee—that I do not believe it is beyond the bounds of credibility to say that we can listen to the evidence and reach a balanced decision and judgment upon it. What we were asked to do was to act on behalf of this House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: No one would question the integrity of hon. Members or question whether they could carry out that function. The question is whether our procedures will be seen to be fair by those outside the House and by those who lose as a result. That is a different matter. Members may not doubt the integrity of those who are members of the Committee but there are those outside who, if they lose, may feel that they have not had a fair deal, and that could be very damaging to democracy.

Mr. Thornton: I do not believe that there will be people outside this House who will refuse to accept that they have not had a very fair hearing, because they have. Certainly I think this will be borne out by the petitioners who appeared before our Committee. I do believe that there are many things said in this House which are not repeated outside, and I wish that some of the things that have been alleged in this Chamber tonight would be repeated outside. It would be interesting to see what happened to them there.
What we are being asked to do tonight is to recognise that, whatever may be the need for a long-term review of the procedure governing private Bills, the House has responsibility to those who come before it to discharge its duty with the best of expedition until the procedure is reviewed.
It is worth mentioning at this stage that the route which has been chosen on this occasion was not another option that they could have picked. We have been told that the private Bill route was the only one available in this instance, and if this House requires that procedure to be followed, it is incumbent upon the Members of this House to discharge their functions as best they may. It is not right that delay and excuses, however sincerely the hon. Lady might believe that she has done the right thing, should be used to frustrate the procedures of the House in this way.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are many occasions when our procedures are designed precisely to protect petitioners, and that many Opposition Members similarly wish to protect petitioners from time to time? It is because of the right of petition to this House, and the redress of grievance and the rest, that we have these procedures. They are precisely to protect those very people, because we want to make sure that they do not get a rotten deal.

Mr. Thornton: My hon. Friend is right to draw this to the attention of the House, because that is true.
The House has decided that the membership of the Committee should be two Members from either side of the House. It is not for me or for anyone sitting on the Government Benches to determine the way in which Opposition Members are appointed or the way in which the Opposition's usual channels operate. When I was asked whether I would agree to serve on the Committee, the time commitment was made perfectly clear. It was made clear to me also that the business would be pre-eminent and that the House would require me to give it priority over everything else that I was seeking to do. In accepting the invitation to serve on the Committee, I accepted those conditions.
It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Cynon Valley or any other hon. Member to use the conditions of membership as an excuse for not sitting on the Committee. It may be that she was not told of the conditions that would apply. It may be also that the hon. Member for Leeds,

Central (Mr. Fatchett) was not told either. However, that is a matter for them to take up with their own party channels. They do not have an excuse that can be used to frustrate the workings of the Committee.

Mr. Sayeed: I was told that a private Bill Committee takes precedence over other business of the House, but I should like it to be clear that I was conned into accepting membership of the Committee to a certain extent in that I was told that the Committee would sit for only two weeks.

Mr. Thornton: Perhaps we all thought that our time in Committee would be over far sooner than it has proved to be. However, we were aware that we were expected to make every effort to try to facilitate the swift progress of the Bill.
Statements have been made with the intention of casting a slur on myself and my colleagues. It is not good enough to say that they were not meant personally. The remarks have been of an extremely personal nature. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has been mentioned this evening, has been the subject of some of these remarks. It would be strange if the Member in whose constituency the development was taking place did not mention the matter to some of his colleagues if he thought that it was good for his area. This was done in a perfectly proper fashion. It is incredible—

Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Thornton: No. It is incredible—

Mr. Boyes: Yes, it is incredible. Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point? I ask him to give way, on the letter.

Mr. Thornton: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.

Mr. Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thornton: No.

Mr. Boyes: That is because the hon. Gentleman dare not do so.

Mr. Thornton: The depths to which Opposition Members will sink is incredible.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your advice. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) may or may not have received a letter from the former chairman of the Conservative party. This could be material to his position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Boyes: An important issue has arisen, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that a number of Conservative Members received a letter from the previous chairman of the Conservative party—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He is raising a point of argument and not a point of order.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) received a copy of the letter, he is not entitled to sit on the Committee.

Mr. Boyes: That is the point I am making.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are perfectly legitimate issues to raise in debate. They are not points of order for the Chair.

Mr. Thornton: rose—

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: It is extremely important to seek your guidance on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that a member of the Committee has to declare whether he has any financial interest in the matters that are to be discussed? If the hon. Member for Crosby, who is currently the Chairman of the Committee, received a copy of the letter in question, by that token he should not be sitting on the Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Selection Committee and not for the Chair.

Mr. Thornton: If Opposition Members had cared to remain seated for a few more minutes, they might have received the answers that they are seeking. They are so used to seeing things which really do not exist and to casting innuendo across the Chamber that they find it impossible to sit still long enough to listen to something which might answer some of their allegations.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, in the proper discharge of his constituency responsibilities on Second Reading—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: So we were right.

Mr. Thornton: I am certain that my right hon. Friend mentioned to a number of hon. Members, myself included —[Interruption.] That having happened, I was one of those present in the Chamber to support the Bill on Second Reading. Is it being suggested— [Interruption.] Do Opposition Members want to hear what I am saying or do they not?

Mr. Eric Heffer: I do, because I shall report it back to Liverpool.

Mr. Thornton: If the hon. Gentleman will be quiet for a moment he may learn even more that he can take back to Liverpool. In common with many other hon. Members, I supported the Bill on its Second Reading. Does that mean that anyone who gave that support to the Bill is precluded from serving as a member of the Committee? I cannot believe that that is so.
It has been alleged—this led to some rather disagreeable exchanges in Committee— that the company in question made donations to the Conservative party and that that compromised it and myself and my hon. Friends who were serving on the Committee. The question was asked of the chairman of the company, who answered it honestly and openly in Committee.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue of donations arose from a question that I asked in Committee? There was no statement. I asked the witness a question.

Mr. Thornton: Yes.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Withdraw.

Mr. Thornton: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley asked the question and the question was answered. The chairman of the company agreed to produce the figures to the Committee the following day, which he did. An exchange took place arising from a line of questioning by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. Exception was taken by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley to something that was said during that line of questioning. It seemed to me that her reaction went over the top.
The way in which this debate has been conducted brings nothing but discredit upon the procedures of this House—[Interruption.] I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Opposition's false hilarity disguises the fact that there is no substance in their allegations. It is deplorable if all hon. Members are to be subjected to allegations of this kind when they are involved in the procedures of this House.
I am not at all happy about the fact that this procedure is being brought before the House. It is wrong that the Committee should be forced to sit with a quorum that is less than that which the House originally decreed that it preferred. Neither I nor any of my hon. Friends have sought or caused this failure. Those Opposition Members who are responsible for it should examine their consciences.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The changing of the Committee's quorum means that we are considering a very wide principle. It is also a fundamental democratic principle. This matter has to be examined with great care. If the quorum is changed on this occasion, many hon. Members will feel that a great deal of private business ought also to be dealt with by objection. It is no secret that for a very long time I have been dissatisfied with the private procedures of this House. Instead of trying to adjust those procedures, I suggest that it would be far better to have a wide inquiry into the whole question.
If the quorum is reduced to two, it will result in an absolute farce. At the end of the Committee's deliberations a vote may have to be taken. There will be only two Committee members. If one of those members votes one way and the other member votes the other way, the Chairman will have to use his casting vote —[Interruption.] The not. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) will not need to attend the Committee's proceedings; if he disagrees with the Chairman, in the end the Chairman will have two votes. The hon. Member has only one vote. This would result in a complete farce. By changing the quorum on this occasion we are giving a judicial function to one Member of this House.

Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill could follow any other than the private Bill procedure. If the Labour party had not opted out, the Chairman would be unable to exercise his casting vote. There may be a three-to-one vote at the end of the Committee's proceedings. It is necessary to come to the House for a change in the procedure because the Labour party has opted out.

Mr. Bennett: That is not quite correct. If four Committee members were present and they divided two and two, the Chairman would still have the casting vote. The Chairman's power is considerable. We are being


asked to approve a procedure that reduces the quorum to two. I suggest that this could lead to one member of the Committee reaching a decision. That is unsatisfactory.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Bennett: No.
I accept that it is grossly unfair of the Opposition to suggest that because the company had made a considerable contribution to Tory party funds the judgment of the hon. Member for Bristol, East would be affected. However, I refer him to the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) who compared the Committee's function to that of a jury. Could anybody who had received a sum of money either from the accused or from somebody who was involved with the prosecution sit on a jury? However much his integrity might be supported, other people could not and should not be asked to believe in it. If people are acting in a judicial capacity they have to be seen to be absolutely impartial.
The problem in a democracy is to gain the consent not of the majority but of those who do not approve of what the Government are doing. People have to be persuaded that things that they do not like are fair and just. That is a very real problem. How do we persuade somebody that it is right to build a nuclear power station at the bottom of his garden, or that a Channel tunnel marshalling yard should be placed outside his back door? How do we persuade people that they must put up with large numbers of container lorries going past their doors, day after day, night after night? How do we persuade people that mud flats which are the natural habitat of many birds should be destroyed? It is difficult to find the right balance between the rights of the individual and the good of the country, or the good of a company or its profits. We do not have to convince those who win the case that the procedure is fair and just. We have to convince those who lose the case that it is fair and just and that they should put up with something because it is in the national interest.
There are two procedures for making objections. For a long time the only procedure was the private Bill, but since the 1940s the public inquiry procedure has been introduced. The hon. Member for Bristol, East suggested that the public inquiry procedure was not available in this instance. I suggest that it is. After a planning application has been made and a decision reached, it might be necessary to ask for a private Bill to put into effect the result of the planning application. The objectors would be less likely to feel aggrieved if they were able to make objections at a public inquiry and if they were also able to take advantage of parliamentary procedures. They have every right to feel aggrieved at not being allowed to opt for the public inquiry procedure and this type of Bill. The problem for the promoters and the Government is to convince those who object that they have had a fair hearing. Even those who have petitioned against the measure in Committee have not felt that. They make no criticism of the Chair, but they do not feel that the procedures are fair.
The promoters can use their money to employ experts to deploy their case. Groups such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Ramblers Association do not have those resources. They are extremely good pressure groups, and have people who have learnt

parliamentary procedures carefully going through private Bills. However, most members of the general public do not understand the procedure for introducing a petition or how to make it comply with legal requirements within the required time scale. They have considerable difficulties with the procedure.
The Private Bill Office is extremely good at advising individuals how to do that, and I pay tribute to it. In reality, as the Private Bill Office often points out, if one wants to do a good job, one should get parliamentary agents to do it. That is expensive, and the majority of people cannot afford it. On the other hand, at a public inquiry one can make one's objections. Normally, if one appears on the first day of an inquiry and makes it clear to the inspector that one wants to be heard, one will have that opportunity. It is important to ensure that those who will be dissatisfied with a decision should at least have the satisfaction of making their objections.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: As I was a Minister with responsibility for planning for many years, I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, how does it help those who want their case to be heard by a Committee if some members of that Committee remove themselves from the hearing?

Mr. Bennett: I was not arguing that that helps such people. This case shows that the procedure is not working. It has produced complete dissatisfaction. It no longer matters how the Committee proceeds, because people outside do not feel that they have had a just hearing. If the two Labour Members continue to sit on the Committee, and if the Chairman, with his casting vote, and his colleagues carry the day, it will be felt that justice has not been done.

Mr. Cash: Regarding the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), are not hon. Members incurring unreasonable cost for the petitioners by refusing to participate in the proceedings? Is not that a reason why they should resume their responsibilities? Why is it that the other hon. Members who have been nominated to the Committee have refused to take part in the proceedings? If they have refused because this is nothing more or less than a Labour plot to frustrate the proceedings, is that not a contempt?

Mr. Bennett: That is an interesting argument. The hon. Gentleman is obviously in conflict with most Conservative Members, who have sought to tell the House that even if only two hon. Members are present, they will be so fair and unbiased that all objectors will have a fair hearing. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that Tory Members will be not influenced by the fact that the Tory party has received money from the company, he is making the same allegation that the Labour party was proposing. I doubt whether that is his hon. Friend's argument.
We must consider our procedures carefully to ensure that people who object feel that they are getting a fair deal. We must do so urgently, because although there have been some objectors to this Bill, we shall soon have a similar procedure on the Channel tunnel, and far more people will present petitions against it. There are differences. For example, the Channel tunnel Bill will be a hybrid Bill, and both the Government and this type of Committee will be involved.
One of the problems will relate to how long the Committee will sit. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr.


Thornton) said that he may have been a little misled about how long their Committee would sit, and I suspect that he misled the other members of the Committee about how frequently they needed to sit. Nothing is laid down in Standing Orders about how frequently a Committee needs to sit. It may use its discretion. If a Committee decides to sit only once a month, the Chairman of Ways and Means may seek a direction from the House that it sit more frequently.
However, the need to sit three days a week through prime time in the House is not required. That is a custom and practice which has developed, but the Committee is not bound by it. Often a Chairman and hon. Members decide that it may be more convenient to sit on a Monday evening rather than on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. The trouble is that parliamentary agents have tended to ask for the sittings to take place for their convenience because of the problem of instructing and paying for counsel to represent them. There has been an erosion of power. The Chairman said that he had been told that he had to give the Bill priority, which suggests that the Government Whips gave him the impression that he did not have as much choice in the matter as he has.

Mr. Thornton: I wish to clarify the hon. Gentleman's point. Any discussions that I had were not with the Whips, but followed a talk with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, and, subsequently, were with the Private Bill Office. I endorse his point that the Private Bill Office provides tremendous support for our endeavours. In no way did I mislead the Committee. We discussed a sittings motion informally, and agreed to expedite the business, as is the custom and practice of the House. Subsequently, arising from the obvious difficulties that sitting for three days a week creates for hon. Members, we agreed to vary the sittings of the Committee to facilitate hon. Members attending Question Time in the Chamber. I certainly did not seek to mislead the Committee, nor do I think that any member of the Committee would claim that he or she had been misled.

Mr. Bennett: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's comments.
There will he considerable difficulties about how often the Committee on the Channel tunnel sits. Hon. Members are often accused of filibustering on Bills. The problem with the Channel tunnel measure will relate to the length of time to which petitioners will be entitled. Indeed, how much time are the petitioners and promoters entitled to take on this Bill? Hon. Members who land on the Channel tunnel Bill, whether because someone puts an arm around their shoulder and encourages them or for another reason, must consider carefully the time implications for them and how far they should give priority to such a Bill over all their other duties in representing their constituents. I suggest that there will be some problems, especially with respect to petitioners. At present, any person is entitled to submit a petition. An objection can be made and the petition goes to the Examiners of Petitions. Once a petition has been accepted as valid, the petitioners have a right to be heard before the Committee.
I suggest that this measure has considerable implications for the Channel tunnel legislation. There is a growing feeling that the proceedings on private Member's Bills take too long, that the promoters develop their case at too great a length and that sometimes,

although not often, petitioners take a long time to present their arguments. I suggest that the House should quickly look at this aspect.
Instead of considering whether to change the quorum, would it not be in the best interests of the House to look carefully at the procedures for private Member's Bills? If the motion is passed, some Labour Members may want to question whether private business should continue to operate in its present form. Ninety per cent. of private business is unopposed. If people feel that an issue has become party political and that the procedure has not been particularly fair, the temptation will be to object to more private business. In that case, we shall return to the position last century when there was a great deal of horse trading on private Members' Bills and the Committee debates were only a minor part of the proceedings, the work being done in negotiations outside the Committee between the petitioners and the promoters. Most of the work was done across the Floor of the House and different groups of Members were persuaded to support different interests.
I caution the House that, if it alters one small part of the proceedings, the temptation will be for other people to look carefully at the private Members'Bill procedure and perhaps to increase the flow of objections to that legislation on the grounds that the procedure needs to be urgently reformed. Is it a good idea to change the quorum on the Committee? Would it not be better at this point to initiate urgently an inquiry into the procedure with respect to totally private Bills and hybrid Bills, so that we can ensure that people feel, especially if they lose, that they have had a fair and just hearing?

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government seek tonight to force this issue by asking their supporters to vote for the motion, that would be a first-class disgrace, bearing in mind that the company involved paid £60,000 into the Conservative party coffers at the last election?

Mr. Bennett: That is a fair point, but we should be a little careful. Let us remember that the motion is tabled on behalf of the Chairman of Ways and Means. He is acting as the servant of the House. He is proposing a way out. I suggest that that is not a satisfactory way out and that we need a far-reaching and quick inquiry into procedure.
I think that, at the end of the debate, many hon. Members will not want to vote against a motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. We do not have to come to a vote. It would be possible for the Chairman of Ways and Means to consider withdrawing the motion so that there can be further discussion on the matter and we can decide whether to reform the procedures. It might even be possible to ascertain whether an hon. Member can be persuaded to proceed with the Bill. That would be another way to avoid the quorum difficulty. There are a few possible alternatives. It will be unsatisfactory if the Government decide to move the closure motion and push hon. Members to a vote. It will mean that we have a short-term solution which will produce further long-term aggravation for the House and all those people who have a just right to object to the legislation.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Fifty-two Labour Members have signed a motion calling for the


quorum on the Bill to remain at three. I wish that that were possible, but it is not. To understand why it is not possible, it is necessary to detail the chronology. It is necessary in passing to understand the lack of competence of the Labour Whips office. It is necessary to note that the genesis of the opposition to the motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means comes from people who are determined only to accept rules which they like, while ignoring or subverting rules with which they disagree.
Many of the 52 Labour Members are not willing to submit to the rules of the House. They are not willing to test their dislike of the private Members' Bill procedure democratically. They are attempting to subvert the will of the House by ignoring its rules and by making its procedures unworkable. I believe that the House will not and should not permit them to do so.
If any Labour Members think that I am being unfair to any of the hon. Members who signed the motion, I make them an offer: I shall unreservedly withdraw my remarks, providing that just one of the 52 Members agrees to join my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and myself on the Committee. That Member must make the proviso that he will read the evidence that has come before the Committee and agree to attend faithfully every meeting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and I have done. I do not hear any great shouts. I suppose that that lack of offers shouts for itself. Not one of those 52 signatories is prepared to serve on the Committee because those hon. Members do not like the procedure. They want to undermine the procedures of the House.
I accept that it was suggested to me that consideration of the Bill would take only two weeks. I regret to say that it has taken a great deal longer, but I have attended the Committee's meetings every time, and I shall continue to do so.
The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill Committee was formed on 13 November. When it was formed every member of the Committee was told, in no uncertain terms, that that Committee took precedence over other business in the House. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was aware of that. The hon. Lady raised the matter of her sponsorship by the Transport and General Workers Union and asked whether that represented a conflict of interest. She was assured that there was no conflict of interest. Until that time it was open to her to refuse to serve on the Committee—she did not do so.

Mrs. Clwyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wish to point out to him that in the past it has not been possible to refuse to serve on this type of Committee. When I refused to serve on the Committee—by permission of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who accepted that I had absented myself from the Committee permanently—that created a precedent. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts straight.

Mr. Sayeed: I am glad to answer that point. I checked with the Private Bill Office whether it was open to a member of that Committee—before Committee proceedings had begun and they had agreed to serve on that Committee—to withdraw. The answer was yes. The hon. Lady either did not know this or chose to ignore it.

Mr. Cash: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it was open to the hon. Lady to have sought an excuse to

withdraw from the Committee? Would it not be right for the hon. Lady to tell the House whether she did seek to be excused? Did the other members who were asked whether they would attend that Committee but refused do so as prescribed under Standing Order No. 117?

Mr. Sayeed: I do not recall the hon. Lady requesting permission not to serve at the beginning of proceedings. She may have mentioned this to someone else but she certainly did not mention it to me or in my hearing.
The hon. Lady mentioned her belief that her sponsorship by the Transport and General Workers Union may have been considered a conflict of interest. She was assured on that point by the Private Bill Office Clerks.
The sittings motion was agreed unanimously as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. It is true that it was later amended at the request of both Labour Members of the Committee. It was amended to assist the Labour Members and such assistance was consistently shown by my hon. Friend as Chairman throughout the 14 days. On 10 December, almost a month after the Committee was formed, the Gas Bill had its Second Reading, and a day later a Committee was formed. The hon. Lady, despite membership of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill Committee, asked to go on the Gas Bill.

Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Gentleman is confused.

Mr. Sayeed: In front of witnesses, the hon. Lady asked to be allowed to go on the Gas Bill Committee. This was despite the fact that she ignored the fact that her prior duty was to the Private Bill Committee. This was the first instance of the incompetence of the Labour Whips for they should have known that it was impossible for the hon. Lady to serve on both Committees.

Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member, unless I have misheard, appears to be repeating a private conversation that he alleges to have had with my hon. Friend in this House. I thought it was a convention that private conversations were not mentioned in this Chamber but if that were the case this House would be in terrible, terrible trouble.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be unwise to repeat private conversations.

Mr. Sayeed: I was not aware of that convention, Mr. Speaker. I would not, of course, wish to go against any convention of the House, so I apologise to the hon. Lady.

Hon. Members: And withdraw it.

Mr. Sayeed: And I will withdraw it as well.

Hon. Members: Exactly.

Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Lady was put on the Gas Bill Committee by the Labour Whips and it was an example of their extraordinary incompetence. The hon. Lady was already on a Bill to which she owed a prior duty. The most charitable assumption we can make as to why the Labour Whips put the hon. Lady on the Gas Bill Committee was that they were grateful for one more willing body prepared to serve on it. They forgot, however, that she had a prior duty to a Private Bill Committee. Even before the Gas Bill Committee sat, the hon. Lady's attendance was dilatory. After it started to sit, it was derisory.
On 22 January, after we had sat for 14 days and cost the promoters and petitioners some £1·25 million, the hon. Lady, on one of her rare appearances, started to ask


questions about political donations. That line of questioning was not germane, but my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, in his normal generous way, allowed it to proceed. The hon. Lady then seized on a slightly loose answer from the chairman of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to suggest that her honour and integrity were impugned. Any person who was not determined to find any excuse to avoid their responsibilities, and any reasonable person who read the transcript, would realise that the only people who could conceivably have grounds to believe that their integrity was being attacked by that line of questioning were my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and myself.
The hon. Lady's excuses for leaving the Committee were spurious. I believe her action to have been a deliberate, major and sustained contempt of the House, and I hope that the House will deal with it. A series of meetings followed. I expressed a strong preference for the Committee's membership remaining at four, with a quorum of three, but I said that I believed that the Labour Whips should stipulate that any person willing to join the Committee must find the time to read the transcripts for the 14 previous days and be willing to take part in all future proceedings.

Mr. Sedgemore: The hon. Gentleman has gone power mad.

Mr. Sayeed: I understand that the Labour Whips Office proposed the hon. Member for Dursley—

Mr. Terry Lewis: He cannot even get my constituency right.

Mr. Sayeed: —without even asking him. No doubt that assured that the hon. Gentleman had sufficient excuse for not agreeing to serve. The Labour Whips crowned their incompetence by being unable to find, from all the ranks of the Labour party, a second member of that party to serve on the Committee so that we could have a Committee of four and retain a quorum of three.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps I could correct the hon. Gentleman. My constituency is Worsley, not whatever he called it. I received a letter from the Private Bill Office saying that there had already been 14 sittings. With the letter came a certificate which I was supposed to sign and which the hon. Gentleman had already signed. On it, I was asked to declare that I would not vote on any evidence that I had not heard or about any meeting that I had not attended. That is the most ludicrous thing among many ludicrous things that I have been asked to do in my few years in the House. I should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman could understand that fundamental problem.

Mr. Sayeed: I understand the hon. Gentleman's objections to serving on the Committee. I was not blaming him for not wishing to serve on the Committee, although it was open to him to read the transcript. His hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley would have been unable to vote at any time had she remained on the Committee as she has not been in touch with what was happening even though she had consistently read the transcripts for all the meetings which she did not attend. Despite all efforts, the Labour party has not been able to put one more hon. Member forward to serve on the Committee, which now numbers three.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not so much a question of the Labour party not being enthusiastic about serving on the Committee, as that the Labour party is deliberately ensuring that no one serves on the Committee? Furthermore, the Labour party's actions in this matter are similar to those that it is employing in other parts of the country and in relation to the debate on Friday, the object of which is to ensure that the ordinary democratic procedures of the House and elsewhere are not followed through.

Mr. Sayeed: I understand my hon. Friend's points about what is coming up on Friday. However, I do not think that the Labour party is intelligent enough to be that Machiavellian. I believe that the Labour party simply could not find anybody else to serve on the Committee. As a consequence, there will be only three hon. Members on the Committee. There needs to be a buffer of an extra person over the number for a quorum. It is therefore essential that there is a quorum of only two. As a famous right hon. Lady says, there is no alternative.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: We have had a very interesting debate and I am glad to see that the issues of private Bills have generated so much interest throughout the House. It must be a rare occasion to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the chairman of the Conservative party and the former chairman of the Conservative party, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, present during a debate. That degree of interest in private Bills is very welcome and I hope that it will lead to a more general discussion of some of the issues that have been raised.
Before I move on to the major themes which I consider to be important, I should like to pick up two points made by hon. Members who are also members of the this private Bill Committee.
The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) said that if an hon. Member did not want to serve on an opposed private Bill Committee, that hon. Member had a right to opt out. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Standing Orders of the House in relation to private business and particularly Nos. 115 and 116. If the hon. Gentleman reads those orders, he will see that an hon. Member does not have the right to opt out in the way to which he referred. Standing Order No. 116 states:
The Committee of Selection shall report to the House the name of every member from whom it has not received within a reasonable time such declaration as is mentioned in the last preceding order, filled up and signed as therein mentioned, or, in lieu thereof, an excuse which it deems sufficient.
In other words, if I or my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) wanted to opt out of the Committee we would have to find a reasonable excuse along the lines referred to in the Standing Order and not, as the hon. Member for Bristol, East said, simply walk out of the Committee.
My next point relates to the contribution from the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). The hon. Gentleman said—he may well have made an injudicious use of words and I apologise for picking him up—that there were allegations—

Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I will not give way but I hope that the advice that he is getting is better than some of the other advice that is around.
The hon. Member for Crosby said that, during the proceedings of the opposed private Bill Committee, allegations were made about the behaviour of the Felixstowe Dock company or European Ferries in relation to donations to the Conservative party. I do not wish to pursue that point in any detail because one or two of my hon. Friends have already referred to it. I hope that hon. Members will regret their decision not to support my private Member's Bill last year which was designed to give ballots to company shareholders. If there had been a ballot of European Ferries' shareholders, its donations to the Conservative party might have had greater legitimacy.

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend says that he does not want to go into the subject of the £60,000 given to the Conservative party in 1983 and £33,000 given in 1984, but does he agree that Mr. Parker, who is sitting up there, made serious accusations against my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) which were so disgraceful that he should withdraw?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend mentions the point that I was about to make. There were no allegations made against the company, although that issue has been mentioned this evening. The only allegations made during the proceedings were made by the company and its representative against my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley.
I shall quote what the company's representative said because it is important. It is included in a transcript of the proceedings on 22 January this year. The House may be interested in the background to the series of questions that I asked. My hon. Friend had asked how much the company donated to the Conservative party, but my inquiring mind led me in another direction. I wanted to know why companies donated to the Conservative party because it may not be a sensible investment at the moment. For the benefit of research and information, I wanted that company chairman to give me some detailed answers as to why a company makes such a political donation without reference to its shareholders. I received some interesting answers.
I told Mr. Parker that the criticism made of such donations was that they might provide access to the Conservative party, and through that, access to the wheels of decision-making in the House. I put that criticism because I understand that people sometimes make it about the Conservative party. I always try to defend the Conservative party and say that I have never met a Conservative Member who would be tainted in any way by any business interests. The only allegation made was made by Mr. Parker. He said:
I suspect the reverse is true of people who contribute to your party"—
in other words, the Labour party—
like the Transport and General Workers, might also expect you to take a view of their case".
Only one possible construction can be put on those words. I have looked for an alternative construction because I realise that under the pressure of the detailed cross-examination to which I was subjecting Mr. Parker the words he used may not have been thought about with great care. I have looked to see whether there is another

possible interpretation. There is not. The only interpretation possible is that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley will take a view of the case consistent with the policy of the Transport and General Workers Union, because she is sponsored by that union.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may not be aware that my son is a football referee. As a football referee, he is not allowed only to expel footballers from the field for dirty play; he is allowed to expel spectators if they are causing a nuisance. Mr. Parker, the man who insulted my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), is in the Box in the Chamber. Have you the power—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that we do not refer to people in the Strangers Gallery. They are, indeed, invisible.

Mr. Boyes: He is not in the Strangers Gallery. He is down here with us.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Already there has been a request that the said Mr. Parker, who is listening intently to the debate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, he is not.

Mr. Hoyle: I always accept guidance from you, Mr. Speaker. I did not quite catch what you said.

Mr. Speaker: I said that he is invisible.

Mr. Hoyle: Would you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the invisible Mr. Parker might have the decency tomorrow —being invisible tonight—to withdraw those offensive remarks that he made to a very honourable Member of whom Opposition Members are all very proud?

Mr. Fatchett: I do not think it is as simple as my hon. Friend makes it out to be. If the person to whom reference has been made were to make an apology to my hon. Friend that would be appropriate. I should have thought that any decent person would do that.
There is a deeper argument which I hope my hon. Friends will recognise. It is not just a question of an apology for comments that may have been made loosely; it is question of those comments vitiating the whole character of the Committee. What Mr. Parker said at that stage raises questions about the impartiality of any member of that Committee who is sponsored by a trade union.

Mr. Thornton: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the exchange, which he rightly says he took up with Mr. Parker after the initial question by the hon. Lady, was discussed by us at length? Does he not agree also that it was suggested that the exchange took place in, I shall not say lighthearted, but a good-tempered manner? He himself admitted that. Does he also not agree that when Mr. Parker was referring subsequently to the Transport and General Workers Union—

Mr. Sedgemore: Why does he not defend himself?

Mr. Thornton: Because he cannot defend himself from an attack that is being made in the House.
Does the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) agree that the Transport and General Workers Union had already given evidence to the Committee on behalf of the branch in Felixstowe, expressing support for the Bill? Does he not agree that it was the only trade union


that had been mentioned and that it was an illustration —no more and no less— from an implied remark? Certainly it was implicit in the remarks that had been made that the company, and therefore Mr. Parker, might have been influenced in another way. He was merely saying that perhaps the converse was true. If the hon. Gentleman is honest about it, he will agree that we discussed the matter and felt that there had been no imputation which Mr. Parker could say the following day had not been intended and was not there.

Mr. Fatchett: In his final comments about what may have been seen as an allegation by myself about Conservative party donations the hon. Gentleman said that the converse may be true. Surely if the converse is true in this case it means that if my initial criticism is accepted, a person sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union must be influenced by that sponsorship and must therefore be expected to support the national policy of that union, which is rightly to object to the extension of Felixstowe docks.

Mr. William Powell: That is a subjective judgment.

Mr. Fatchett: I shall now come to that point.
This evening's argument is that the Committee is expected to serve in a quasi-judicial role. I argue that the comments made by Mr. Parker against my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley vitiate that quasi-judicial role and raise serious questions about the future of the Committee. Further than that, I challenge the whole argument that it is possible for hon. Members to serve on a Committee in what is seen as a quasi-judicial role.
I am not for a moment saying that hon. Members will not act with integrity, common sense or decency. However, a judicial or quasi-judicial role presupposes that political considerations will not be present and will not obtain in the activities of the Committee's procedures. That cannot be the case on a private Bill such as this. To make the argument time and again, as Conservative Members have done this evening, that one can operate in a vacuum without any outside political influence when in a quasi-judicial role is nonsense, and does not bear any examination.
To prove my point, let us look at two sectors that are crucial to the Bill. The first is the expansion of Felixstowe docks and the implication of that expansion for docks in other parts of the country. I refer to docks in Southampton, London and on the west coast, including Liverpool and Bristol. For all of those there will be employment consequences if the Bill goes through, because there will be job losses.
We are told that the Government and the Secretary of State for Transport have no view on the development of port policy. We were told at one stage that what was good for Felixstowe was good for the country. I do not share that view—my political judgment is different. The country needs a dock policy that will ensure good use of resources and capital, and security of employment. How can I approach this matter in Committee without bringing my political prejudices into my answers to the questions raised by the Bill? It is impossible. I cannot be devoid of my political views, and my views on the world and how it should be organised.
That is also true of the second crucial issue, which is whether the company should have the right given to it by

Parliament, if we approve the Bill, to encroach into an area of outstanding natural beauty. We cannot approach such a matter without some political consideration. I support the environmentalist argument and recognise that environmental groups have been pressurised and have lost valuable resources. One of the key factors in the development of the country over the next two decades is how we relate to the green arid ecological issues. How can I, with that perception, operate in a quasi-judicial way, when I bring into the procedures some political conceptions which some Conservative Members would think are political misconceptions? Whatever they are. they are political.
The Tory argument against my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley withdrawing from the Committee is that she has not just let the side down, but moved away from the quasi-judicial role. I am not into arguments about letting the side down. It is about time that this club was changed and the basis of legislation was made more democratic. The argument about letting the side down should be dropped once and for all. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley has been criticised because she will not play a quasi-judicial role. I do not believe that she can do that. I do not believe that the House and its procedures believe that it is possible for that role to be played. Why does the House and its Committee of Selection appoint four members?

Mr. Cash: The hon. Member does not like democracy.

Mr. Fatchett: I will resist the hon. Gentleman. With his party's record of resisting any advance in democracy for the people in this country, we do not want lessons about democracy from him.
The Committee of Selection appoints a committee of four—two members from the Conservative party and two from the Labour party. Why do we appoint people from different political parties? The reason is not that we believe that they are operating in a judicial role but because we accept the argument and the thesis put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in his earlier contribution. My hon. Friend said that it is crucial that minorities outside the House have confidence in our procedures and institutions. That is why we appoint two members from the Labour party and two from the Conservative party. We are playing a political role in a political institution.
What will happen if we pass the motion tonight? By agreeing to a quorum of two we are implying that the Committee will have a membership of no more than three in the future. That will shake confidence in the proceedings of the Committee outside the House and it will question the public's confidence about the procedure in the future. We should bear that in mind before we go through the Lobby tonight. The last time a quorum was reduced was in July 1965. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has obviously been studying the history, and I understand that the reason was that there was no time left in the parliamentary Session to find an alternative person to sit on the Committee. Incidentally, the person was discharged because of illness. There was no argument, question or a debate. If we pass the motion tonight we shall challenge the confidence in that Committee and the quorum will be biased against the Labour party by two to one, whatever the argument.
I want to make two final contributions. I have always said that I would serve on the Committee but I have also


always said that I would serve on a Committee in which the balance was two Labour members and two Conservative members. I am not prepared to serve on a Committee in which there will not be a parity between the two political parties. My earlier argument gives my reasons for that. I do not see any justification in providing legitimacy or some specious confidence for a Committee which is impaired in the way in which I think that Committee will be. I therefore give notice that unless an additional Labour member is found it is not my intention to serve on the Committee.
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, I have read the sanctions that can be imposed upon hon. Members. I am not looking forward to the process of spending some of the summer in the Tower of London or under Big Ben, which I understand is the greatest sanction which can be imposed upon us. I shall probably become like many of my constituents when they are unable to get employment—a clock watcher rather than a useful Member of Parliament. Whatever happens, I think it would show the stupidity of the procedures. In the debate tonight we have opened up not just the debate about a bad Bill which is against the country's interest and should be opposed; we have opened up and questioned the procedures.
I hope that the House will have the common sense and responsibility to question its procedures, to modernise those procedures and ensure that we do not have a back door route to legislation and to the securing and fostering of particular financial interests. We must stop that and ensure that we have a modern Parliament with modern procedures and no more of this nonsense.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Since I had the honour to present this Bill to the House on Second Reading, I wish to make it absolutely clear that I have no interest in this Bill nor in the port.
Hon. Members may feel that I have been less than diligent on behalf of my party, but until the matter was raised by Opposition Members I did not know that the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Company was a contributor to my party's funds. I admit that it might have been wiser for me to have discovered that, but I had no such knowledge when I presented the Bill.
It is fair to tell the House that when, as a Suffolk Member, I considered the case for a Suffolk port, I consulted my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) who represents the area involved. As one who has had the privilege, as others have had, of presenting a number of Bills, I was anxious that the Member of Parliament involved should back the proposal.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think me churlish, but far from giving it the vigorous public backing that I wanted, he hung back because he thought that it would be wrong for a member of the Government, especially the chairman of the party, to adopt a public position on such a Bill. It is only right that I should put that firmly on the record.
Everyone has a great deal of sympathy and understanding for those of our colleagues who are asked to spend a great deal of time, which could be devoted to other matters, stuck in a private Bill Committee. When I first entered the House, I, too, was conned. I was put on

a private Bill Committee where I spent some 12 weeks, when I would have vastly preferred to have been in the Chamber.
However, I learnt something from two rather distinguished Labour Members who had been Chairmen of Committees for many years. They made it plain that I was expected to be in Committee on time, to be there all of the time and to listen to everything that was said. They insisted that Members of Parliament were acting on behalf of this House as a whole, so it was their absolute duty to form an objective view on the evidence put before them. I learnt from those distinguished Labour Chairmen that that was the best way to proceed.
It appears that in respect of the Bill and the discussion, the precepts of those distinguished Labour Members have not been followed. I understand the difficulties encountered by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), and do not complain about that aspect. Perhaps the debate, bad tempered and ragged as it has been, may well lead to a measure of reform. However, at the moment we are using the existing procedure, and whether it should be reformed is not the question before us. That question is only whether we should back the judgment of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, will join me in paying tribute to the present Chairman who has an immensely difficult task, but who, over many years, has given immeasurable service to the House. The issue is whether the Chairman of Ways and Means has arrived at the right decision in the circumstances.
When the House gave the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill a Second Reading, it laid a duty upon the Chairman of Ways and Means to ensure that the Bill would be considered in Committee under the procedures laid down by the House. It was for him to ensure that the promoters had a fair and proper hearing and that the petitioners were equally fairly heard.
The Chairman sought to do his duty by arranging for a Committee to meet. The Committee of Selection did its full duty by providing that hon. Members were available to perform that duty. Unfortunately, it proved impossible to proceed along the lines that have been traditional in the House for some time. The Chairman of Ways and Means, being prevented by circumstances from fulfilling the duty laid upon him by the House, had to take a different view. I am advised that he could have proceeded in one of two ways. In broad terms, he could have sought to discipline hon. Members who were not prepared to attend. We have moved a long way and it would have been exceedingly difficult and unpleasant if he had proceeded in that direction.
In some respects I regret that Parliament has progressed and that that sanction is no longer available to us, However, the Chairman of Ways and Means had to consider reducing the quorum. I do not regard that with any enthusiasm. If the motion had been to reduce the quorum to two members in all future private Bills Committees, I should have opposed it, because that is a major step. A Committee of the House would wish to examine procedural changes of that type with the greatest care before making any decision.
The Chairman had to decide. His decision is that the quorum should be as few as two members. That does not require that the Bill should proceed with only two members. Four members is the correct number, and if the Opposition were prepared to find those two members, they


would join the Committee and it would proceed with the proper number. Unfortunately, that decision cannot rest with the Chairman of Ways and Means. He can invite hon. Members to join the Committee, but he cannot make them attend. That is a practical fact that the Chairman must face.
The motion before the House arises from the position in which the Chairman of Ways and Means found himself. We are not here tonight to decide the merits of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill or the political judgment of hon. Members who may sit on that Bill. We must decide whether the House backs the Chairman of Ways and Means in his judgment. That is the only issue on which we have to decide.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: I believe that the House expects me to respond to some of the points raised during the debate. I shall try to do so briefly.
I begin with a confession. When I entered the House a little more than 20 years ago, I was a beneficiary of much of the wisdom and advice of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). No doubt it is due to his benign influence that I managed to avoid all contact with private Bill Committees until I reached my present position.
We have had a valuable debate. In all the years that I have just mentioned, this is the first time that we have had such a debate about private Bills.
When the House gave me the duties that I now undertake I immediately became involved in and concerned about some of the issues that have been raised in the debate.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) talked about the need to modernise our procedures. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), in a contradictory statement, said that we needed an in-depth review to be done quickly. He cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member for Fife, Central talked about the need for a long, hard look. I believe that we need that long, hard look.
The House may be reassured to hear that I have recently taken some exploratory steps to see whether we can carry out a review of the private Bill procedure, the extent to which it is necessary and how such a review could be carried out. Obviously, a number of consultations will be necessary. People outside the House are involved, and the procedure in Scotland is different.
It is also important that we do not carry out a review as a knee-jerk reaction to a particular set of circumstances; we must do it in a proper, organised way. The House will recognise the need for such a review and I hope that hon. Members will be pleased that we have initiated it.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central, echoed by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), spoke about the obligation to attend a private Bill Committee. He said that they were the only Committees where attendance was compulsory and said that a defaulting member may be fined. The fact that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley is not serving on the Committee is a sign of the absence of compulsion. There are provisions in our Standing Orders, but they have to be acted on by the House. It would be for the House to decide whether, in the light of circumstances, disciplinary action— if that is the right expression—would be appropriate. We must examine how we induce hon. Members to serve on Committees. I do not believe

that we ought to resort to compulsion and I do not believe that the House would support a motion to compel hon. Members to serve on a Committee.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that I should withdraw the motion to allow time for further discussion, and he pleaded for the normal quorum to be retained, as did other hon. Members. However, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) was right to point out that the passing of the motion would not inhibit the Committee from proceeding with its full membership and with the normal quorum.
I understand that the Committee of Selection has gone to considerable pains to try to obtain the services of other hon. Members to serve on the Committee. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central recognised that he is still a member of the Committee and he is willing to serve in the qualified way that he explained. The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) is also a member of the Committee. The membership exists; all that is necessary is for good will to apply and for the procedures of the House to be made effective. My motion would merely provide a long stop.
We must apply to the Bill the procedures of the House as they are now, and not as hon. Members might like them to be. I have said that I sympathise with those hon. Members and share their view, but the only fair basis on which the House can operate is to recognise that the procedures are included in our Standing Orders and that it is my responsibility to try to make them operate.
In accordance with the normal private Bill procedure, the promoters of the Bill have petitioned Parliament for powers not conferred by the general law. As we have been reminded, they secured substantial support for the Bill on Second Reading and they are entitled to expect that the Bill should be examined in detail in Committee, as long as they retain the support of the House. They are entitled, as are the petitioners against the Bill, to have their case heard by the Committee.
It would be infinitely preferable for that Committee to comprise members of more than one political party. as is usual. This motion will not prevent that, but I think we should not overlook the fact that when the Committee has completed its work the Bill will return to the Floor of the House for hon. Members again to consider it, exercise their judgment, express their opinions and reach their decisions in the remaining stages and procedures of the Bill. The House must defend its procedures to enable it to operate properly, and that is the basis of the motion. I hope that the House will carry it.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say that this is a custom which many of us find most distasteful? We have been discussing other distasteful customs this evening. I was advised that this debate would continue until 10 o'clock, or could do so. In the light of that advice, would it not be possible to suspend the debate until 10 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: The debate has been going on now for over two hours on a procedural motion. It is not out of order or even against precedent to accept a closure motion


offer over two hours, and it is up to the House to decide, by the votes on the closure, whether it wishes the debate to continue.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the debate hon. Members were led to believe that it would continue until 10 o'clock, and the voluntary allocation of time between hon. Members has been on that basis. I put it to you that the House undermines the position of individual hon. Members in private negotiations, so that hon. Members are led to expect something that does not automatically follow.

Mr. Speaker: I know of no understanding between hon. Members. All I know is that a number of hon. Members have spoken at great length and that a number of other hon. Members wish to take part. There is no private arrangement that the debate should go on. It is not a matter for me, anyway.

The House having divided: Ayes 231, Noes 113.

Division No. 73]
[9.50 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Crouch, David


Ancram, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Tom
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Ashdown, Paddy
Dover, Den


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dunn, Robert


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dykes, Hugh


Batiste, Spencer
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Eggar, Tim


Beith, A. J.
Evennett, David


Bellingham, Henry
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Benyon, William
Fallon, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Farr, Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Favell, Anthony


Blackburn, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Body, Sir Richard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Fox, Marcus


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Freeman, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Galley, Roy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Browne, John
Gow, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Grant, Sir Anthony


Buck, Sir Antony
Gregory, Conal


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bulmer, Esmond
Grist, Ian


Butcher, John
Ground, Patrick


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Chope, Christopher
Harvey, Robert


Churchill, W. S.
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Coleman, Donald
Hawksley, Warren


Coombs, Simon
Hayes, J.


Cope, John
Hayward, Robert


Corrie, John
Heddle, John





Henderson, Barry
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hickmet, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hicks, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hind, Kenneth
Roe, Mrs Marion


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Holt, Richard
Rowe, Andrew


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howard, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Silvester, Fred


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sims, Roger


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jessel, Toby
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Speed, Keith


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Speller, Tony


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Spencer, Derek


Kennedy, Charles
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Key, Robert
Squire, Robin


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kirkwood, Archy
Steel, Rt Hon David


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Steen, Anthony


Knowles, Michael
Stern, Michael


Knox, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lamont, Norman
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lang, Ian
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stokes, John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sumberg, David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lilley, Peter
Terlezki, Stefan


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lord, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lyell, Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Tracey, Richard


Maclean, David John
Trotter, Neville


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Twinn, Dr Ian


McQuarrie, Albert
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Madel, David
Viggers, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Waddington, David


Mather, Carol
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Maude, Hon Francis
Walden, George


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Waller, Gary


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Watts, John


Meadowcroft, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Merchant, Piers
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Whitfield, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Whitney, Raymond


Moate, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Winterton, Nicholas


Murphy, Christopher
Wood, Timothy


Neubert, Michael
Woodcock, Michael


Newton, Tony
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Parris, Matthew



Pawsey, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Sir Eldon Griffiths and


Powley, John
Mr. Robert Rhodes James.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Alton, David
Caborn, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Canavan, Dennis


Bermingham, Gerald
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bidwell, Sydney
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Boyes, Roland
Clarke, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Clay, Robert


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Clelland, David Gordon






Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
McTaggart, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Martin, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dubs, Alfred
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eadie, Alex
Michie, William


Eastham, Ken
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ewing, Harry
Nellist, David


Fatchett, Derek
O'Brien, William


Faulds, Andrew
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Park, George


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Pavitt, Laurie


Foulkes, George
Pike, Peter


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Prescott, John


Garrett, W. E.
Redmond, Martin


George, Bruce
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gould, Bryan
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hancock, Michael
Rooker, J. W.


Hardy, Peter
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sedgemore, Brian


Haynes, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Heffer, Eric S.
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Home Robertson, John
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hoyle, Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Soley, Clive


Janner, Hon Greville
Spearing, Nigel


John, Brynmor
Strang, Gavin


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lambie, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Lamond, James
Wareing, Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Welsh, Michael


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Litherland, Robert
Winnick, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey



Loyden, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:


McCartney, Hugh
Mr. Ken Weetch and


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton.


McGuire, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 259. Noes 108.

Division No. 74]
[10.05 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bright, Graham


Ancram, Michael
Brinton, Tim


Arnold, Tom
Brooke, Hon Peter


Ashby, David
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Browne, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bruinvels, Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Batiste, Spencer
Buck, Sir Antony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Budgen, Nick


Bellingham, Henry
Bulmer, Esmond


Benyon, William
Burt, Alistair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butcher, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Blackburn, John
Butterfill, John


Body, Sir Richard
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Bottomley, Peter
Cash, William


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Chapman, Sydney


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Churchill, W. S.


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)





Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cope, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Corrie, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cranborne, Viscount
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Duffy, A. E. P.
Key, Robert


Dunn, Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Durant, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dykes, Hugh
Knowles, Michael


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knox, David


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Norman


Evennett, David
Lang, Ian


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Farr, Sir John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lilley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Foster, Derek
Lord, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Lyell, Nicholas


Franks, Cecil
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fry, Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David John


Galley, Roy
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Glyn, Dr Alan
McQuarrie, Albert


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McWilliam, John


Gow, Ian
Malone, Gerald


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mather, Carol


Greenway, Harry
Maude, Hon Francis


Gregory, Conal
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Merchant, Piers


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hanley, Jeremy
Murphy, Christopher


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Newton, Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Harvey, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Haselhurst, Alan
Parris, Matthew


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Pawsey, James


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Penhaligon, David


Hawksley, Warren
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hayes, J.
Powell, William (Corby)


Haynes, Frank
Powley, John


Hayward, Robert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Heddle, John
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Henderson, Barry
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hickmet, Richard
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hicks, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rost, Peter


Hind, Kenneth
Rowe, Andrew


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Holt, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Howard, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Silvester, Fred


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Sims, Roger






Skeet, Sir Trevor
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waddington, David


Speed, Keith
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Speller, Tony
Walden, George


Spencer, Derek
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watson, John


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Whitfield, John


Stokes, John
Whitney, Raymond


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry


Sumberg, David
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Winterton, Nicholas


Terlezki, Stefan
Wolfson, Mark


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Woodcock, Michael


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thurnham, Peter



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tracey, Richard
Sir Eldon Griffiths and


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Robert Rhodes James.


Twinn, Dr Ian





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clelland, David Gordon


Alton, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashdown, Paddy
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Corbett, Robin


Beith, A. J.
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Craigen, J. M.


Bermingham, Gerald
Dalyell, Tam


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric


Boyes, Roland
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Caborn, Richard
Eadie, Alex


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ewing, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Fatchett, Derek


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew


Clay, Robert
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)





Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Flannery, Martin
Michie, William


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Garrett, W. E.
Nellist, David


George, Bruce
O'Brien, William


Gould, Bryan
O'Neill, Martin


Hancock, Michael
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Park, George


Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Hoyle, Douglas
Pike, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Redmond, Martin


Janner, Hon Greville
Richardson, Ms Jo


Kennedy, Charles
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Lamond, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Livsey, Richard
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Loyden, Edward
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


McGuire, Michael
Torney, Tom


McKelvey, William
Wareing, Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Michael


McTaggart, Robert
Winnick, David


Madden, Max
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marek, Dr John



Martin, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Maxton, John
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton and


Maynard, Miss Joan
Mr. Ken Weetch.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That leave be given to the Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill to sit with two members to-morrow and thereafter.

PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Housing (Scotland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1986 which was laid before this House on 13 January 1985 be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss at the same time the motions on the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1986, and with the consent of the Opposition the Prayer on the Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1986.

Mr. Speaker: Very well, if the House so agrees.

Mr. Ancram: The full details of the housing support grant settlement are set out in the report which accompanies the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order. In the light of the time limits on this debate I will therefore not burden the House with excessive detail. I will, however, explain the thinking behind these proposals and also the limits which have been set out in the Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order.
We have reached agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the formula for the distribution of housing support grant this year. I should like to place on the record our thanks to the convention for its contributions to our discussion. In the housing support grant settlement for 1986–87, the Government have aimed again at concentrating resources on those authorities which, in our view, require them. We have estimated eligible expenditure at £308 million and relevant income at £257·3 million. Housing support grant will therefore total £50·7 million, which will be distributed among the 24 authorities which, we believe, will incur deficits on their housing revenue accounts in 1986–87.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: How can the Minister possibly justify the miserable Government of whom he is a member increasing council house rents by 168 per cent. since they came to power and now refusing to give one penny of housing support grant to the vast majority of housing authorities, including Falkirk district council, which is in my constituency, which has not received one penny from the Government for years? How can the Minister justify this savage attack on the living standards of council house tenants and on the council's ability to improve and expand its housing stock?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will await the rest of my argument, he will get an answer. He is suggesting that councils that are in surplus on their housing revenue accounts should still be helped by state subsidies to all tenants, regardless of need. I find that an extremely strange argument.
We have left out of the reckoning the expenditure and income of authorities that we believe will generate a surplus. Had we not done so, housing support grant would have been wiped out completely and authorities which continue to need subsidy would have been substantially worse off.
Local authorities' expenditure on housing is, of course, very sensitive to changes in interest rates. By agreement with the convention, we are again applying an average rate of interest to authorities' individual volumes of debt—

11 per cent. has been assumed in this settlement. If, however, in practice interest rates prove to be significantly different from our current assumptions, we will bring forward an appropriate variation order in due course. The 1985–86 variation order reflects a similar undertaking given at this time last year, and brings four authorities —Stewartry, East Lothian, 1nverclyde and Monklands— back into grant.
The figures in the housing support grant orders reflect our continuing concern to balance the undoubted need for expenditure on housing against our responsibility to control public expenditure as a whole. This is particularly the case in the amounts we have allowed for management and maintenance expenditure. These allowances have been the focus of much discussion with the convention, and we have agreed that a review of how they are calculated should be carried out during this year. for 1986–87, however, we have uprated the management and maintenance provision in the 1985–86 settlement by 4 per cent. to hold it constant in real terms.
On the income side, we are assuming for the purposes of the settlement that rents will increase by £1·26 per week over 1985–86 order levels, bringing rents to £13·85 in order terms. Taking these housing support grant assumptions together with the Government's decisions on rate fund contribution limits, we estimate that average council house rents will rise by about £1·60 per house per week in 1986–87.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What advice has the Scottish Office had from the construction industry about the effect on employment of more generous maintenance grants?

Mr. Ancram: We have had discussions about the effects on employment of various forms of expenditure, including those which might be spent on maintenance. I shall say something about capital allocations later, but if the figures that were quoted by the chairman of the subcommittee of COSLA on housing are correct, many jobs will have been created by the additional allocations that I have made this year.

Mr. John Maxton: Would the Minister care to express the rent increase of £1·60 in percentage terms and relate it to the increase in the retail price index during the past year?

Mr. Ancram: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to develop my argument as I want later, and in context, to say something about the level of rents that we are assuming and expect in the coming year.
It is right to consider the Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order with the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order, because they are closely linked.
The Government have the responsibility to take difficult decisions about the total resources which the nation can afford to devote to housing against the background of restraint in public expenditure. In recent years local authorities' decisions to increase the proportion of expenditure paid by ratepayers have reduced the amount available for spending on necessary capital works. Their policies, of pre-empting a bigger share of the available resources so as to keep rents unnecessarily and artificially low, were not only bad for ratepayers, who had to foot the bill, but also reduced the amounts which could be spent


on problems such as condensation and dampness. These short-sighted policies, which overall, over the past four years, forfeited £112 million in terms of housing expenditure limit penalties, exacerbated the housing problems that we face today. They were therefore bad for the long-term interests of the tenants themselves.

Mr. William McKelvey: The hon. Gentleman referred to the visit of the then Secretary of State for Scotland to Kilmarnock in 1982 when the right hon. Gentleman commended the Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council on its initiative and the spending on the Knockenlaw initiative. At that time, the council was in receipt of £4·7 million in housing support grant but since 1984 the council has had zero grant. How can the Under-Secretary of State match that with a description of an irresponsible council?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. Obviously the council has conducted its housing affairs well enough and its level of housing support grant can now be reduced. Our expectation, on the assumptions that we make for the rent increase needed from Kilmarnock and Loudoun this year, is that it will be considerably lower than the average which I announced earlier.
Last year we took new powers and required authorities to budget for rate fund contributions of no more than £89·5 million in 1985–86. This enabled us, last March, to issue capital allocations on the housing revenue account totalling £276 million, which amounted to an increase of £49 million over those issued the previous March. Our decision this year to require authorities to limit their estimated rate fund contributions to a maximum of £69·76 million in 1986–87, as set out in the order before the House, has enabled us to issue provisional capital allocations totalling £322·5 million in Scotland for 1986–87. That figure is £46 million more than we issued last March for 1985–86. For the second year running, we are making a very real increase at a time of continuing restraint in public expenditure generally. This 42 per cent. increase in allocations of nearly £100 million over two years, reflects the high priority we are giving to ensuring that local authorities have the resources to meet essential needs. We have, for example, increased the special allocation for condensation and dampness from £16 million in 1985–86 to £20 million in 1986–87.
Moreover, although last year the accusation made by Opposition Members was that resources had simply been switched from one block, the non-HRA, to the other, the allocations for next year on both the HRA and non-HRA blocks have each been increased by more than double the rate of inflation, in all a £60 million increase over what was issued last March. Furthermore, the total resources available to authorities in 1986–87 will be further enhanced by the new arrangement which, for the first time this April, will allow authorities to carry forward automatically underspends of up to 3·5 per cent. of 1985–86 allocations.
In setting an aggregate limit to rate fund contributions of £69·76 million, we have consulted widely about the implications of the individual limits set. The distribution of this aggregate took account this year, both of the level of housing stock in each authority and of the limits set last year. As usual, we have heard exaggerated claims about

the impact of rate fund contributions on council house rents, including some which I read in the press this morning.
Our view is that, making reasonable assumptions about loan charges and management and maintenance costs—we have, for example, for this purpose assumed that authorities will spend up to 6 per cent. more on management and maintenance than last year—average rent increases in Scotland next year will be about £1·60 per week. That figure was not seriously disputed by the convention when I met it on 9 December. Obviously the rent implications for individual authorities will vary, depending upon their own expenditure and income pattern.

Mr. Donald Stewart: What does the Minister say about the Western Isles council, which already has the highest rents in Scotland — on the Department's figures — and which will have to raise rents by £1·90 per week? Is the idea that rents are already so high that another £2 a week does not make any difference?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that the rents will have to go up by £1·90 a week. That is considerably lower than the projected figures put forward this morning by Shelter. The right hon. Gentleman knows, because my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State wrote to him on the matter after a recent visit, that part of the problem with the Western Isles is that for the current year and the next financial year, the council intends to increase management and maintenance by 25 per cent. That is considerably ahead of the rates that we had assumed, which were above the rate of inflation and which are built into the order. It is for the Western Isles to make a judgment on that matter, but it must take into account the fact that if it increases its maintenance and management expenditure to the extent that it has, that will have an effect on rents.
Many hon. Members may remember that at this time last year when I suggested that average rents would rise by just over £1 per week, we heard some wild claims about the effect of the rate fund contribution limits upon rent levels. It is worth considering what happened. Average local authority rent levels, as estimated in CIPFA's rating review, rose by £1·02 per week between 1984–85 and 1985–86. That is almost the figure that we had predicted, which was rubbished by Opposition Members during a similar debate. I do not think that our predicted average rent increases of about £1·60 this year is unreasonable in present circumstances.
During the current year the average Scottish rent is only £11·56. The rents of many individual authorities, especially in the west of Scotland, are lower still. In Glasgow the average is £10·64, in Aberdeen it is £11·21 and in Dundee it is £9·82. That compares with an average local authority rent in England and Wales of £15·64.

Mr. McKelvey: Irrelevant rubbish.

Mr. Ancram: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says it is irrelevant rubbish. If he considers the comparative position of Scotland and England, he may not find it as irrelevant as he suggests.
In 1985, the average earnings of manual workers in Scotland were higher than those of their counterparts in England and Wales. With almost half of all households in Scotland in public sector rented housing it is difficult to


justify such low rents. If tenants have genuine difficulty in meeting their housing cost, relief is available to them through the housing benefit system.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister give the comparative costs of maintaining, repairing and managing houses in England, Wales and Scotland? He will find that the Scottish figures are lower, so the rents are lower.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) who shouted from a sedentary position—it is equally implicit in the suggestion that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is making—suggested that that is somehow unfair to those who pay rents in Scotland. As a percentage of weekly income, rents in Scotland are about 7 per cent. as against 9·6 per cent. in England. It is time that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies realised the damage that has been done in past years by artificially keeping down rents at the expense of the capital needed to spend on the real problems affecting Scottish housing.
In conclusion, let me emphasise that we are determined to continue to concentrate the resources available for housing on capital investment rather than on subsidies.

Mr. David Steel: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman said, "In conclusion". I was waiting for him to come to the point in his speech where he would deal with the effect of Scottish Office estimates of council house sales on the housing revenue account allocations. I understand the Government's determination to keep down housing expenditure, even if I do not agree with it. However, it is unforgiveable that in order to arrive at their figures they should produce completely notional figures of council house sales. In the case of Ettrick and Lauderdale district council, the estimate is 25 per cent. above the council's own estimate. How can he justify that?

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman may be ambivalent on the right to buy council houses, but the estimates have been made after close consultation with local authorities. There is no benefit and no advantage either to myself or to the Scottish Office in over-estimating the number of sales, because there would be problems about the block allocations at the end of the day. What I have said, and will repeat—

Mr. John Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I am answering a question. I have answered quite a few questions already.
I repeat that if resources become available within the housing block grant I shall be prepared to consider supplementary allocations to authorities where there have been genuine reasons for a shortfall in housing sales. Obviously, that must depend on resources becoming available and I cannot give a categorical assurance about it.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. Barry Henderson: rose—

Mr. Ancram: This is a short debate and I have given way several times. I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Henderson: In the criteria which my hon. Friend has just mentioned, will he take specific account of the local authority which has already sold a substantial part of its property and has not been idle in regard to sales?

Mr. Ancram: That is one of the criteria which my officials and the officials of housing authorities will consider closely. It is not in the interests of either party to make over-estimates. Equally there are within Scotland examples where under-estimates have been made, particularly in Glasgow, which I understand expects to overshoot its estimate by £2 million. That council has not been known for its keenness to sell council houses. Obviously the under-estimate will be good for tenants in Glasgow because it will provide capital that can be spent on the housing problems.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I will not give way again.
In conclusion, let me emphasise that we are determined to continue to concentrate the resources available for housing on capital investment rather than on subsidies. Subsidies do not encourage efficient management by authorities. Where they benefit the better-off tenant who does not need them, they are wasteful on any view of scarce resources. Our policy has already allowed us to make substantial increases in the level of capital investment in the housing stock.
Opposition Members often accuse us of making slashing reductions in capital expenditure on housing. If is part of their mythology of cuts. But if we examine the record of the Labour party when it was last in government, we see that gross capital expenditure, at constant prices, fell by 37 per cent. over the four years between 1974–75 and 1978–79. By comparison, on the same constant price basis, less than 5 per cent. has been lost below the 1978–79 level.
We have consulted widely and at length on the orders before the House. Above all, the orders allow us to maximise capital allocations to housing authorities to deal with the very real problems in Scotland's housing stock.
I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. John Maxton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) on his promotion, and on his first night sitting in the Whip's place. If that is the quality of the speeches that the Minister is to give, the hon. Gentleman's progress will be swift. In the Glasgow Herald of last week, I read the headline:
Rifkind in bid to revive Tories' flagging Fortunes.
The article underneath said:
Scottish Office Ministers and Scottish Conservative MPs have been told to adopt a new, high profile presence.
If the Minister's speech is the high profile that the Secretary of State is expecting, he will have Rambo chasing after him very quickly, with his machine gun firing all the way round.
I notice that the Secretary of State seems to take great pleasure in the insult that the Daily Record paid him by calling him Rambo. After all, Rambo is a simplistic, violent moron, who has a total blind obedience to simplistic beliefs and is manipulated by people cleverer than he is. I would have considered that an insult, but on second thoughts, perhaps the Daily Record got it right.
The Minister's problem is that of all Conservative Ministers in Scotland. They are becoming increasingly schizophrenic. There is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde feeling about them. The only thing is that it is Mr. Hyde who is trying to change into Dr. Jekyll rather than the other way round. The problem is that they see their standing in the


opinion polls slipping to 14 per cent.—a record except for one occasion when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) was chairman of the Scottish party. They like to give the impression that they are a caring Government and that are doing all that they can in difficult circumstances to look after the unemployed, the old, the young, the sick and the disabled. On the other hand, there is still "She who must be obeyed", demanding, in pursuit of her ideology, that public expenditure must be cut at all costs.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Who wrote this, Helen Liddell?

Mr. Maxton: We have our bosses, but the Tory party is even harsher.
With these orders, the harsh Mr. Hyde is winning the battle. It is not the caring capitalism that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) would like to see from the Tory party. The Minister has suggested that the Government are being generous to housing but in housing, as in all other sectors, there is a rigid adherence to the ideology of monetarism over everything else.
The Minister made great play of the capital allocations, housing increases, and the rest. However, today the Government published a Green Paper entitled "Public Expenditure 1988–89: a Commentary on the Scotland Programme". This shows that in 1980–81, the total housing programme, which is what matters, cost £781 million. In 1986–87, it will cost £645 million, a cut of £136 million, or 17·4 per cent., and that is only in cash terms, not real terms. If one adds inflation to the figure from 1980–81, which makes the comparison less bad than if we use the 1979–80 figures, just to stay at that level, the Government would have had to spend £244 million extra on housing. In real terms, the cut in total housing expenditure since 1981 is close to 50 per cent. I do not know how the Minister can stand there and say anything else.
The Minister spoke about capital allocations, as if somehow or another, when he gives capital allocations, he is giving local authorities money to spend. He is giving them permission to borrow money. That borrowing has to be paid for. It has to be paid for by the rents and increasingly, as housing support grant is cut, it has to be paid for by the tenant. Sixty per cent. of housing expenditure is at present on loan charges. Is the Secretary of State implying that I pay that when I take out a mortgage? I hope that he is because I shall come to that shortly.

Mr. Bill Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House what proportion of that 60 per cent. is paid for by the taxpayer through the other assistance that is given directly to individuals for the payment of their rent and rates?

Mr. Maxton: I do not think that the fact that people are unemployed or old or have inadequate pensions has to be taken into account. Ministers do not take that into account in other things they do. The capital allowances have to be paid for, in the main, by those tenants who pay the rent and interest on them. That is the answer to what the Government are doing.
The orders are of course about housing support grant. We shall come to capital allocations at a later date. In

1980–81 housing support grant was £228·2 million. In this order it will be £50·7 million next year. That is a reduction in cash terms of £162·7 million since 1980–81 and a reduction of £13·5 million over this year. The rate fund contribution is, equally, to be cut by £20 million between 1985 and 1986. We do not have to ask ourselves whether this affects the public purse or the Government, but what it does to tenants and local authorities in Scotland. The fact is that 32 district councils which received housing support grant in 1979 and in 1980–81 will get nothing at all next year. In some district councils the tenants will now have to bear the full burden of housing costs, which, as I said earlier, includes 60 per cent. on loan charges.

Mr. Ancram: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Is he suggesting that housing support grant, which I think was always regarded as a deficit grant, even when the Labour party were in office, should be paid at the same level regardless of whether housing authorities come into surplus.

Mr. Donald Dewar: They are not genuine surpluses.

Mr. Maxton: As my hon. Friend has just said, they are not genuine surpluses. If they were the same levels of housing support grant local authorities would have been able to keep rents down nearer the level of inflation and would have had a lot more to spend on repairs and maintenance in their houses.

Mr. Ancram: It is a public subsidy.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister says it is a public subsidy. Let us have a look at the facts. In 1979–80 the housing support grant was £223·43 per dwelling. It will be £59 on average as a result of the order. That is a reduction of subsidy of £164. I admit that it is a subsidy. That fact alone has meant an increase of £3 per week in rent. At present the average mortgage interest relief in Scotland is £550 per year. That is nearly 10 times the subsidy paid to the council house tenant. That cannot be right. We are not suggesting that we should get rid of relief for the taxpayer but it must be an equal subsidy. Why should the poorer council house tenant get no subsidy whereas those who are better-off and buying their own houses do?
Council house rents have increased by an average of 168 per cent. —twice the rate of inflation. As local authorities have been faced with more and more cuts in housing support grant, so they have been forced to cut expenditure on maintenance and housing generally. At the same time, they have often had to raise rents. When there has been any attempt by local authorities not to do that, they have been forestalled by the Government.
That has meant that tenants have faced ever-increasing rents and poorer and poorer service. Let us take Glasgow as an example — an area that the Minister claims is generously treated. Rents have risen by 100 per cent.—which is not as high as the average—while expenditure on repairs and maintenance has risen by 0·5 per cent. in cash, not real, terms. Rents have risen by an average of £275 while expenditure per house has risen by 74p. The effects of that are extremely damaging for tenants.
Even if the Minister was not interested in the plight of tenants, even if he was not a thrifty Scottish capitalist—which other Conservatives are—he should be concerned about the state of property. Surely the Government do not want local authority stock declining and deteriorating. As


the level of housing support grant is reduced, so the stock deteriorates, because local authorities do not have money to spend.
Whatever the Minister might say about capital allocations, they are not keeping pace with the need for special housing, modernisation and repairs. COSLA, in its housing campaign document, stated that 332,000 houses in Scotland need modernising, 118,200 need rewiring, 314,000 suffer from dampness or condensation and 50,000 need major or structural repairs. COSLA estimates that that requires £700 million every year for the next 10 years—yet this year the Government are allowing authorities to spend only £280 million. COSLA states that that sum would not allow authorities even to keep their houses wind and watertight.
I know that the Minister disputes COSLA's figures.

Mr. Bill Walker: How much each year?

Mr. Maxton: As I said, £700 million each year over 10 years.
I accept that within the figure of 314,000 houses suffering from dampness, some could be modernised, but the cost of modernisation does not include remedies for dampness. Equally, dampness can be remedied without modernising the house.
If the Minister disputes the COSLA figures, why does he not meet its representatives and talk about it? He has flatly refused to do so. If he believes the figures to be wrong, why does he not establish a house condition survey such as there is for England and Wales? An ex-Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), is nodding.
Glasgow district council carried out a survey. It has instituted an inquiry headed by Sir Monty Finniston, hardly a wild figure of the Left. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has given evidence to the inquiry, but the Secretary of State has refused to do so. When the right hon. Gentleman wrote to Glasgow district council, he said:
I note also that the intention is that the Inquiry will 'bring forward practical recommendations for action by Government, the District Council and other agencies'. Those concerned in the Inquiry should recognise the impracticality of proposing any course of action which would involve substantial increases in levels of public expenditure.
We know that in housing matters the Prime Minister's attack on public expenditure takes precedence and not the caring capitalism of the right hon. Member for Henley.
Housing conditions in Glasgow do not matter to the Secretary of State. It does not matter how many people are living in appalling damp conditions or what rent they pay. It does not matter to him what they are suffering in Glasgow.

Mr. Ancram: Rubbish.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister says "Rubbish", but Labour Members have constituents who live in appalling conditions in large housing schemes in Glasgow. The only thing that matters to the Minister and the Secretary of State is the need to cut public expenditure.
The Government have no support for their housing policy, or any other policy, in Scotland. The Government are on the way out. Many Conservative Members will be wiped out at the general election, and the sooner the better.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has accused

my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland of being dogmatic, but it was the hon. Gentleman who exposed his belief that only the public sector was competent to manage housing matters. We have shown that we are pragmatic in all our legislation, ranging from the Tenants' Rights, Etc (Scotland) Act 1980, piloted through the House by the new Secretary of State, to the recent measures brought forward today.
A mixture of public sector and private sector participation is most likely to meet the housing needs of the Scottish people. The assumption of the hon. Member for Cathcart that the public sector will always be better is difficult to sustain in practice.

Mr. McKelvey: The hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to learn that he has a measure of support for what he says. Does he accept that the public and private sectors in Scotland should be examined? A house condition survey would show up some of the horrors of the private sector that exist in the public sector, because of lack of finance from the Government.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon (Mr. McKelvey) served with me on the Select Committee when we considered the problems of dampness in housing. Undoubtedly, those problems exist in the private sector. It is interesting that more has been done in the private sector than in the public sector to respond to the problems. For too long, public sector housing managers pooh-poohed council tenants, especially in Glasgow, when they complained of dampness, which we now understand to be condensation. Their problems were pooh-poohed, but we know now that those were real problems, which should have been dealt with. In the private sector and a free market economy they would have been dealt with long since. The public sector's slowness to respond to tenants' problems has been a severe disadvantage.
The hon. Member for Cathcart quoted COSLA emphasising the need for more attention to be paid to condensation and other housing problems. Those problems exist, but when local authorities are given the choice of where to put their money, they do not adopt those priorities. When the hon. Gentleman's local authority had the choice, it preferred to subsidise rents rather than resolve housing problems.
Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary explain why we still need any rate fund contributions? The phasing out of rate fund contributions has been a sensible progression and I am surprised that the contribution is still so large.
Will my hon. Friend also give us a progress report on the sale of council houses? I am a little anxious lest the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which has much to commend it and is still before the House, may have caused a pause in sales because of the improved discounts that it will confer on tenants whose local authorities are not voluntarily providing those discounts. I should like an assurance that sales are proceeding satisfactorily.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) has left the Chamber, but he mentioned the fears expressed by councils who do not sell the amount of housing that the Scottish Office expects them to sell. I have heard about those fears. I do not know of any council that has faced that problem, but I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary assured the House that he would respond flexibly to local authorities that had difficulty in turning the assumptions into facts.


The hon. Member for Cathcart made much play of the problems of interest repayments for housing authorities. I am sure that he will recognise the important contribution that the sale of council houses has made to reducing the debt burden of those authorities and, therefore, to reducing the interest that they have to pay.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave me a sympathetic response when I raised with him previously councils' housing roles. They have other responsibilities, apart from managing estates, and I regret that much of the finance from the Scottish Office has been given on the assumption that that is the only responsibility of housing authorities.
There are remarkable differences in the apportionment of housing grants to various authorities. I cannot understand them. I understand that some authorities have been given no grants, because they have been left out of account under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978, but why does Roxburgh need £1 million of support while Ettrick and Lauderdale needs none? Why can Banff and Buchan get by on £800,000 when Gordon needs £2 million? Those are surprising differences and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would explain why they still exist.
Can more be done to separate the management costs from the maintenance costs of local authorities? Much inefficiency is sheltering behind the conjunction of those costs into one figure. There has been a considerable mixture of allocations. The urban areas have had a particularly heavy allocation of support grant.

Mr. George Foulkes: There are more houses in urban areas.

Mr. Henderson: The urban areas have had a proportionately higher grant. Does the hon. Gentleman want details?

Mr. Foulkes: No, no.

Mr. Henderson: In the interests of brevity, I shall spare the hon. Gentleman the details.
Even in terms of population, a disproportionate amount of housing support grant seems to be going to the conurbations. I hope that, just because there are some loudmouths in those areas, that will not be the only consideration in determining grant.
Finally, I hope that the House will welcome the fact that the improved housing revenue account and non-HRA blocks are substantially improved on last year, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to deal with some of these points in his winding-up.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) will forgive me if I do not follow the line of his argument. Can I make a brief and succinct intervention to this debate by raising with the Minister the question of capital consent generally?
It is my impression that housing authorities are now substantially tailoring their expectations in the capital consents that they are putting forward to the sort of reactions that they have been getting from central Government. The Government should take that seriously when they look at these figures in terms of just exactly how

they are measuring up to the expressed need. The expressed need is now being screwed down in a substantial way by the local authorities themselves because they have had such short shrift in the past. The Government must not use that criterion as a measure of their so-called success in dealing with the capital allocation situation.
Secondly, the question of council sales is causing some difficulties. I wonder if the Government would look again at the problems that flow as a consequence of the Treasury rules on annuality. There is something like a 3·5 per cent. carry-over from one year to the next, which is unusual in as much as other accounts such as roads have bigger carry-overs—about 10 per cent. I think.
There is a point here because there are great difficulties when council house receipts are taken as part of the total figure available to councils. It is impossible for local authorities to have a clear and concise estimate of exactly what moneys are going to fall within one year, as opposed to the other. This means that they are left on certain occasions with either shortfalls or with excesses, which they then have to try and spend in short order. I think it is right to mention that that causes problems for local authorities.
The Government's overall policy is to reduce the rate fund contribution. They think that the way of dealing with the consequent higher rents is by putting people on housing benefit.
The Minister must not take his own Department and that policy in isolation from what is going on in other Government Departments. In the near future we are going to come up against some real changes in housing benefit regulations which will reduce the floor for tenants. I think that these changes taken together with the proposals for the new community charge, with a 20 per cent. rate contribution by people who would formerly have been eligible for housing benefit, is something which his Department must consider when looking at orders like this in future. I ask him to do that as a matter of urgency in the coming Orders this year and next year.
The initial reduction in the rate fund contribution was from £120 million to £90 million, and it was further reduced to £70 million. That reflects a swingeing timetable of cuts. The Government's policy is clear and we all expect such things to happen, but the Minister must consider the timetable carefully when making such cuts. Many people will suffer hardship as a result of the extent of the cuts and the way in which they are being implemented.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, comparisons with England are unrealistic. That can be said about the balance of the housing stock—the ratio of council-owned housing to owner-occupied housing—and proven maintenance costs. Given the maintenance costs that the authority in my constituency and in others have to meet, it is unrealistic to make comparisons with authorities south of the border. It is not comparing like with like.
There have been many fancy plans in the Scottish Office recently, including one to impose a tenants' self-maintenance scheme. What has happened to that scheme? I understand that it is going ahead but I have heard nothing about it. I do not support the scheme that was put on the stocks and made the subject of consultation in Scotland any more than the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill


(Mr. Craigen), for example, but I should like to know what has happened to it. We last heard of it about a year ago, when consultation was taking place.

Mr. James Craigen: The hon. Gentleman may recall that when we debated the scheme in Committee on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, the Minister told me that it was a manifesto commitment. I told him that if he wanted to forget it, I would not remind him of it.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman has dealt with the scheme in his usual succinct fashion. The Minister will recall that I initiated an Adjournment debate on the housing condition survey last Session. I have not changed the opinions that I expressed on that occasion. The Government are relying on a system of local authority housing check lists. The local authority in my constituency is short of staff who can carry out checklist responsibilities properly. The survey is important and it might frighten us to learn what is happening on a properly assessed percentage basis. We must proceed sensibly to deal with the problem over the next five to 10 years.
I understand that consideration has been given to the possibility of introducing an equivalent to the client-group approach assessment for rate fund contributions in future. There are real possibilities in that direction. Local authorities in the Borders would be the subject of a much more accurate assessment of need. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) gave a good example that merits investigation.
I shall make two constituency points in conclusion. First, there are many houses in Berwickshire that are in need of repair and improvement, especially those in private ownership.

Mr. David Lambie: Landlords.

Mr. Kirkwood: Some landlords have great difficulty in maintaining their houses in areas such as Berwickshire. Councils such as Berwickshire are good at maintaining the public housing stock and they maintain it well, but they find that the private stock is in bad repair. Previously, the only way open to them of tackling the problem was through the old system of improvement grants, which was extremely successful. It may have been expensive but it was an excellent way of dealing with the problem. I hope that the Government will think again during the consultation and will allow an element of grant. I accept that an element of equity loan financing is appropriate in certain circumstances but I believe that the old form of home improvement grant was much preferable to the new proposed system.
The rate fund contributions and the housing support grant calculations leave Roxburghshire with a deemed housing support grant income per head of £565,000 and with an assessed rate fund contribution of £52,000. That leaves them with a terrible problem. The contributions are unfair. A reasonable rate fund contribution would be £200,000. That costs each tenant about £100 a year, which is a substantial amount of money.
There are problems over empty housing stock in towns such as Hawick, but the scheme that is designed to sort out the difference between the housing support grant and the rate fund contribution exacerbates the problems. The Under-Secretary of State's speech was optimistic, but many of his figures are spurious. The capital allocations have to be traded off against the changes that have been

made to the housing support grant and the rate fund contributions. If they are added together, we are not left with the rosy picture that was painted by the Minister. For that reason, if for no other, I propose to advise my colleagues to vote against the orders.

Mr. Bill Walker: I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that if the Government are to examine the funds that are to be made available for housing, the amount of money that is allocated to housing improvement grants ought to be increased. They particularly help those who live in rural areas.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) huffed and puffed in his usual way and suggested that the amount required to carry out the necessary repairs to council house stock in Scotland amounts to £700 million every year for 10 years. It is interesting to note that Scotland would be asking for 10 per cent. of the public sector borrowing requirement to be spent in Scotland during the next 10 years. It is also interesting to note that it would amount each year to between £800 and £900 for each council house for a period of 10 years. A large amount of money will have to be spent on some houses, but no money will have to be spent on others. I find it difficult, therefore, to accept that figure.
What causes this huffing and puffing? For years the Labour party has bought votes by means of a cheap rents policy. That policy has been very successful. However, it has led to more and more houses in Scotland, particularly in the urban areas, falling into disrepair. It is inevitable that under the support system everybody enjoys a cheap rent, whether or not they can afford to pay a true rent for their property. People are not required to pay a true rent under this policy. But of course not; it is geared to catching votes. It has nothing to do with providing assistance to those in need.
Housing benefit goes to the individual. He qualifies for it according to his needs. If the local authority increases somebody's rent, it is paid by the taxpayer. He pays for the housing benefit. On the large housing estates in Scotland, it is not those who could not afford it who have been disadvantaged by the increase in rent, but those who could afford it. They do not like it because they voted Labour and thought that if they kept on voting Labour they would continue to enjoy the benefit of the taxpayer heavily subsidising their houses.
Anyone who examines the schedules will see that both Angus district council and Perth and Kinross district council receive a zero sum of housing support grant. Both councils ensured that their housing stock was well managed, but they are now disadvantaged because they must continue to support large housing estates which have fallen into disrepair. Sheer chaos has resulted from a policy which has been applied for three decades and which has been out of phase with housing support. The gearing and structure began to fall apart under the Labour Government simply because central Government could no longer afford to pay the vast sums necessary to local government so that it could continue the system which bought it votes. In future we want to see realistic council house rents being paid throughout Scotland, and support for those who genuinely need it.

Mr. Maxton: What is realistic?

Mr. Walker: A realistic rent is one which will pay to maintain the property in a viable condition during the life time of the tenants. That is the least that tenants can expect for what they pay.

Mr. Kirkwood: Can the hon. Gentleman hazard a guess at the figure necessary to achieve that? Does he accept that, when councils are selling the cream of the stock, the maintenance charges for the residue will inevitably increase?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the cream of the stock will be sold and everyone will be disadvantaged, but that has not happened. Many houses have been sold. I can speak with authority only for my constituency, and I do not pretend to know what is going on in other constituencies. [Laughter.] Unlike the hon. Member for Cathcart—

Mr. McKelvey: On the matter of buying votes, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that I knew him in his boyhood when he lived on a council estate at a subsidised rent, which was less than six bob a week. Why did we fail to buy him? [Laughter.]

Mr. Walker: Unfortunately, the mirth is misplaced. The system that operated in Dundee was run by a Liberal council. It was not Liberal in the sense that the members were elected as Liberals, but the majority of them were Liberals, and I give credit where it is due. It included Sir Garnet Wilson and others. The housing estate where I lived was and is called Linlathen, and families received housing benefit depending on their income. My father had eight children, so the house was heavily subsidised while we were at school. When we went to work an economic rent was paid. I should like to see that system brought back, because it is right. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is an accurate description of what took place in Linlathen. He may have lived on another council estate where the position was different.
I am not ashamed of the fact that I grew up on a council housing estate. Because we had an enlightened local authority which was not attempting to buy votes, we had a system which I advocate. This system means realistic rents for those who can afford to pay them. It means people can buy their houses. The individual should be subsidised, not the house. What matters is the individual, not the building.
Such a system would ensure that adequate funds were available for maintenance and repairs. In time, with an increase in grant, the majority of families could afford to undertake the work. They would, in turn, help to subsidise the scheme. It would be based not on the cost of the individual property but on the total cost. It would be self-financing and would pay for itself.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes a case for low rents being the cause of insufficient maintenance. How does he argue the case for my local authority where council house rents are the highest in Scotland and grants have been cut in half by the Government just to save money?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs spent some time in his constituency studying all the factors. He is correct in a number of respects, but not in some fundamental and important ones. Each individual in the Western Isles is sustained by the public purse—either

collectively or individually, depending on how it is measured—to a much greater extent than in any other part of the United Kingdom, except perhaps in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman's constituency already enjoys more than its fair share of public support. I do not disagree with that, because of the conditions in that area. One must, however, acknowledge what happens. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
If all councils were like Perth and Kinross district council and we had a sensible policy that did not have to cater for all the extravagant practices of the past, there would be much more money for housing repairs. Treatment of the problems of condensation, dampness, bad structure and design could be paid for out of existing funds.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I could not understand why the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was so enthusiastic about the Government's proposal. He was honest enough to say that he did not know what was happening elsewhere. That was self-evident. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman said that.
I remind the House that the debate is about housing support grant. An answer given on 5 December 1985 in response to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) gives certain statistics. The hon. Member for Tayside, North appears to be rejoicing, because the £5,620,000 which his local authority received in 1979–80 under a Labour Government will be reduced to nil if the order is agreed. That might be acceptable to Conservative Members. It is not acceptable to me that my two local authorities—Monklands, which in 1979 received £7,383,000, and Strathkelvin, which enjoyed £3,139,000—will receive not a halfpenny. I do not know why we should rejoice at that. On the basis of those figures, the 168 per cent. increase in rent since 1979, the real terms reduction of capital expenditure for housing authorities and the fact that only 24 of the 56 housing authorities will receive housing support grant, it is clear that the Government are conducting a vendetta against council houses and council house tenants which most Scottish people find repugnant.
I fear that the Minister refused to give way because he understood—

Mr. Ancram: I did give way.

Mr. Clarke: Not to me. He knew that I would refer to COSLA' s representations which, with the document "The Case for a Scottish Housing Condition Survey", utterly destroy the main thrust of the argument that he presented to the House today. He attempted to compare Scotland with England and Wales. On the basis of the facts, that is not possible. We are told that the Minister believes in a free market economy.
Who would assert that the housing circumstances in Scotland are comparable with those in England and Wales? The facts in those documents make it clear that they are not comparable. I challenge the Minister to alter his policy, especially when he pretends in public statements that he wants a good relationship with local government. I challenge him also to meet COSLA so that these facts can be discussed.
The Minister is not an expert on housing conditions in Scotland. Local authorities have to deal with these issues


day after day and face the problem of allocating houses when they know that the supply is insufficient to meet people's demands. They know about the problems of dampness and condensation. The Minister ought to know about them too, because we have a Select Committee which the Government have disgracefully and blatantly ignored. It identified the fact that it costs 20 per cent. more to heat a house in Glasgow than in Bristol. Perhaps the Minister will take such facts into account when he is selling Scotland short, as he did earlier.
The people of Scotland are dealing with a serious problem in regard to fuel poverty. The Government have so far ignored that, just as they ignored representations last year which have been repeated recently, about winter conditions. By their policies and this order, the Government have again divided society. Those divisions are unacceptable in the context of the Scottish cultural background.
Even before the order was presented, 64 per cent. of council tenants received not a halfpenny from the Government, in contrast to the generous treatment afforded to people paying mortgages, who have 10 per cent. more support from the Government than council house tenants. The Minister has treated COSLA disgracefully, although he referred to it several times. He might not be aware that it believes that implementation of the Government's policies for housing benefit puts on housing authorities a burden that they are not ready to accept, that they do not believe they should have been asked to accept and, perhaps most important, that are seen to be to the disadvantage of the recipient, who will be asked to pay 20 per cent. more this year than last.
Although the Minister dismissed the point, I must assert that this is an argument about resources and priorities. Age Concern was right to identify the need for sheltered housing and to remind us that we need an extra 28,500, simply to deal with existing demand. Local authorities are correct to set the problems of the disabled as an urgent need. I congratulate Edinburgh and Edinburgh district council on the priorities that they have set. I am delighted to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) opened such a project at the beginning of this week.
The Minister cannot pretend to local authorities, ratepayers or council tenants that the settlement is reasonable. It is not. It is a settlement which puts Scottish housing at a disadvantage. The sooner the Minister starts batting for Scotland the better. I say that without any great hope that he intends to do so.

Mr. David Lambie: I have always spoken and voted against housing support grant and rate support grant orders since entering Parliament in 1970.
I cannot understand the arrogance of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), the former chairman of the Scottish parliamentary group, complaining that the Labour party was buying votes with a fair rent policy, when his Government have had a policy of owner-occupation and high relief on mortgage payments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said, every owner-occupier in Scotland who receives mortgage tax relief now gets more than £550 a year. The subsidy given to owner-occupiers in Scotland is 10 times that given to council tenants.
The order represents another attack by the Tory Government on the people of Scotland and the ratepayers. That is all right for hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent areas where there is a large proportion of owner-occupiers. I represent a constituency where the majority of the people live in public sector housing. Many of them live in houses owned by the urban development corporation and pay the highest rents in Scotland. The rest live in houses owned and controlled by the Scottish Special Housing Association. They pay the second highest rents in Scotland.
Cunninghame district council has been attacked seriously by the Government in the seven years during which it has controlled housing finance. Scotland has seen a big shift in housing finance from the public to the private sector. I hope that when the Labour party returns to power our Government will be as strong in supporting our voters as the Tory Government have been since 1979.
The Opposition are sometimes too soft to their political opponents. I hope that when we return to power we shall put the boot in and ensure that we play fair towards Labour voters in Scotland and those people who live in public sector houses.
In answer to a question from the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), the Minister said that the rate fund contribution had been cut drastically for the people of the Western Isles because of high management and maintenance costs. The rate fund contribution to Cunninghame district council last year was £3 million in round figures. This year we have been told that it will be £2 million. That is a reduction of one third, and yet our maintenance and management costs are among the lowest in Scotland. The Government seem to pick a formula and apply it whether the rents are high or low. They apply the formula to hammer council tenants.
The Labour group is meeting in my area tomorrow evening to fix the rents and rates for the next financial year.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is there a Tory party there yet?

Mr. Lambie: No. We are looking for the Tories. Ministers have promised that they will ensure that there is a Tory candidate at the next election so that votes are not spread over the other candidates and do not interfere with my majority. I have been given that guarantee by Conservative right hon. and hon. Members. I hope they keep to it. If they cannot get a Tory candidate, I will find a good one for them, someone who supports me although he is prepared to stand for the Tory party to ensure that I get in again.
Last year Cunninghame district council fixed a fair rent and fair rates. We balanced the books, but at the end of the financial year we will have a deficit of £1·5 million. Why? It is not because of the council's income and expenditure policy but because the Prime Minister's economic policies are in a shambles. Interest rates are much higher than we expected. Because of high interest rates the council finds itself with a deficit of £1·5 million. Why should the ratepayers and tenants of Cunninghame district council have to find that £1·5 million because of the failure of the Government? The Government should give the money to the council.
In the debate on the rate support grant settlement I asked the Minister for an estimate of the rate of interest used in the rate support grant formula. Can he tell us now


what rate of interest he wants local councils in Scotland to take as the basis for their rates in the next financial year? He used a rate of 11 per cent. in the rate support grant settlement. If tomorrow night the Labour group in Cunninghame district council decides that the rate of interest for next year should be estimated at 11 per cent., will that be acceptable to the Minister or will it be declared illegal? The Minister should answer that question tonight.

Mr. Ancram: In reply to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), the assumption we have made on interest rates in the housing support grant figures is 11 per cent., as I have said already. If there is a difference during the next year a variation order similar to that before the House can be brought forward. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) knows, interest rates can vary.
This is the second debate in a row in which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has offered to become the Conservative candidate in Cunninghame, South. We will make the suggestion to the Conservative association there for its consideration.
I found the hon. Gentleman's remarks about rents fairly surprising. His authority has the lowest rents in Scotland. We calculate that this year an increase of only £1·70 is anticipated which would mean that the new rent would be £10·59, still the lowest in Scotland. The speeches of Opposition Members indicate that Labour party policy remains, as it always has been, to give the highest possible subsidy not just to council tenants who are in need—that would be too selective—but to those who do not require to be subsidised, in the knowledge that money used in that way will reduce the amount of capital that could be used to overcome problems such as dampness, condensation and the removal of asbestos.

Mr. Craigen: Does the Minister seriously think that, even at a discount, the Opposition Benches would be prepared to take the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is very unfair to my hon. Friend, who rightly pointed out that in all the calculations that Opposition Members make about rents and increases they fail to take account of the amounts of central taxation subsidy paid to them in housing benefit. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.
A number of suggestions were made about the effects of the orders on rents. It was interesting to see this morning in the newspapers a report of a letter sent by Shelter to hon. Members, which made certain projections about rent increases. In particular, it mentioned Badenoch and Strathspey, and suggested that, on the calculations and arguments such as those put forward by the hon. Member for Cathcart, the increase would be £2·68. It is perhaps unfortunate that Shelter did not check with the authority, because it set a rent increase of £1·64. That proves that the false assumptions that the Member for Cathcart was making lead to—

Mr. Maxton: Just to put the record straight, I point out that I never mentioned that local authority in my speech.

Mr. Ancram: The whole way through his speech, the hon. Member, as far as I can make out, was using the same basis for assumption as the Shelter report.
The hon. Member for Cathcart made much about the situation in Glasgow. It is interesting for hon. Members to know what that is. Glasgow has 14·7 per cent. of Scotland's housing. The city has been allocated 24·6 per cent. of Scotland's resources, and that is not exactly a city that is hard done by. In the last few years, to keep its rents artificially low, Glasgow was prepared to forfeit £33 million in housing expenditure limit penalties—money that could have been spent on modernisation, new build and all the problems that the hon. Gentleman said were in Glasgow.
I am sorry that I have not the time to deal with all the specific problems that hon. Members have raised, because of lack of time. The hon. Member made much of the £700 million figure put forward by COSLA. The individual authorities have identified what they wished to spend in 1986–87 and the money needed was £475 million. That shows the sort of double counting that has taken place previously in the figures put forward by COSLA, which makes such figures suspect. I have tried to get COSLA to give me the basis from which those figures come. If it gives me that basis—

It being one and half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 171.

Division No. 75]
[11.47 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon


Ancram, Michael
Cope, John


Arnold, Tom
Corrie, John


Ashby, David
Cranborne, Viscount


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Crouch, David


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Durant, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eggar, Tim


Blackburn, John
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Farr, Sir John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Favell, Anthony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fletcher, Alexander


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brinton, Tim
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Hon Peter
Franks, Cecil


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bruinvels, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Gale, Roger


Budgen, Nick
Galley, Roy


Burt, Alistair
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butcher, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Gow, Ian


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Cash, William
Grist, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Ground, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Churchill, W. S.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith






Hanley, Jeremy
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hannam, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Roe, Mrs Marion


Harris, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Harvey, Robert
Rost, Peter


Haselhurst, Alan
Rowe, Andrew


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hawksley, Warren
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hayes, J.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heddle, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Henderson, Barry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hickmet, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Sims, Roger


Hind, Kenneth
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Holt, Richard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hordern, Sir Peter
Speed, Keith


Howard, Michael
Speller, Tony


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Spencer, Derek


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Spicer, Michael (S Words)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Squire, Robin


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Steen, Anthony


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stern, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stokes, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Key, Robert
Taylor, John (Solihull)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Terlezki, Stefan


Knox, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lamont, Norman
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lang, Ian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Thornton, Malcolm


Lee, John (Pendle)
Thurnham, Peter


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tracey, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Lord, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lyell, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Waddington, David


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Walden, George


Maclean, David John
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Madel, David
Waller, Gary


Mather, Carol
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Watts, John


Merchant, Piers
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wheeler, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Whitfield, John


Moate, Roger
Whitney, Raymond


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wilkinson, John


Murphy, Christopher
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Neubert, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Newton, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wood, Timothy


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Woodcock, Michael


Parris, Matthew
Yeo, Tim


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pawsey, James
Younger, Rt Hon George


Powell, William (Corby)



Powley, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Mr. Gerald Malone and


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Francis Maude.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)


Alton, David
Barron, Kevin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Beith, A. J.


Ashton, Joe
Bell, Stuart





Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
John, Brynmor


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bidwell, Sydney
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Blair, Anthony
Kennedy, Charles


Boyes, Roland
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lambie, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lamond, James


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Caborn, Richard
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Litherland, Robert


Campbell, Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Canavan, Dennis
Loyden, Edward


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clarke, Thomas
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clay, Robert
McKelvey, William


Clelland, David Gordon
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McNamara, Kevin


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
McTaggart, Robert


Cohen, Harry
McWilliam, John


Coleman, Donald
Madden, Max


Conlan, Bernard
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Martin, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maxton, John


Corbett, Robin
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meacher, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
Michie, William


Crowther, Stan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Nellist, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
O'Brien, William


Deakins, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Dewar, Donald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dixon, Donald
Park, George


Dobson, Frank
Parry, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Pavitt, Laurie


Douglas, Dick
Pendry, Tom


Dubs, Alfred
Penhaligon, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pike, Peter


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Prescott, John


Eadie, Alex
Randall, Stuart


Eastham, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Ewing, Harry
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fatchett, Derek
Robertson, George


Faulds, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rowlands, Ted


Flannery, Martin
Sedgemore, Brian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Forrester, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Foster, Derek
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foulkes, George
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, W. E.
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


George, Bruce
Snape, Peter


Gould, Bryan
Soley, Clive


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hardy, Peter
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Stott, Roger


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Strang, Gavin


Haynes, Frank
Straw, Jack


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Heffer, Eric S.
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tinn, James


Home Robertson, John
Torney, Tom


Hoyle, Douglas
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Weetch, Ken


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Welsh, Michael


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
White, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Janner, Hon Greville
Wilson, Gordon






Winnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Woodall, Alec
Mr. Mark Fisher and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Ray Powell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.—[Mr. Malone.]

PETITION

Local Government Reform

Mr. David Alton: I wish to present a petition supported by 11,081 residents of Liverpool drawing attention to the plight of the Liverpool philharmonic orchestra, the Liverpool philharmonic hall and the Empire theatre, all of which are under threat of closure due to shortage of funds as a result of the abolition of the Merseyside county council.
The petitioners pray that
your honourable House press the Minister for the Arts and the Secretary of State for the Environment to visit these two establishments as a matter of urgency and provide adequate support for the arts on Merseyside following the abolition of the Merseyside county council.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

Oakthorpe (Underground Fire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Mr. David Ashby: I thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), for his kindness in waiting up so late to respond to my Adjournment motion. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, for taking such an interest in the debate, which concerns an underground fire in a coal seam at Oakthorpe.
Who would have thought a few years ago that the village of Oakthorpe in the depths of Leicestershire would have achieved such fame and notoriety. We would rather not have that fame and notoriety. If we were not debating people's homes, investments and lives, the facts would be amusing. Few can have the doubtful pleasure of living above a smouldering coal seam with a temperature of 60 degrees celsius a few feet below the surface providing their own central heating. Even fewer can have gone to dig up potatoes in their back gardens to find them already baked, as Mr. Bates of School street did recently.
Oakthorpe is a most attractive mining village, close to the Derbyshire border of Leicestershire. Mining has been carried out in the area since the thirteenth century. Currently there are a number of active deep mines in the area.
As well as coal seams at a deep level, in the area of School street, there is a shallow seam of coal which outcrops just south of School street. It inclines away from School street at an angle of about 20 degrees in a northerly direction. This outcrop is composed of a sulphurous coal which is capable of, apparently, spontaneous combustion when exposed to sufficient air. It is that which is causing the problem.
I hasten to add that the outcrop is limited in its width to the east and west by major geological faults and that a large part of the village has nothing to fear. Furthermore, since the outcrop inclines so rapidly it reaches a substantial depth by the time it reaches an area called New street and beyond. I say this immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there is a fear, bordering on panic, among some villagers who would not be affected. There has also been a substantial loss of confidence in the property market for homes that would not be affected. I say to prospective purchasers and vendors: consult the divisional surveyor of the Leicestershire county council, who will be able to explain the outcropping and the geological faults and the facts about the property to be purchased or sold.
In September 1983, a property known as The Bungalow, in School street, suffered substantial damage. As is common in a mining area, the National Coal Board was notified and in September 1984 it sank boreholes. Those showed that the ambient temperatures were substantially raised. However, the board denied liability and did nothing to halt the fire, inform the county, the district or the parish councils, or adjacent property owners. It even did a smoke test which showed an influx of air—the very cause of combustion. As a result of that failure to notify anyone, the fire continued to smoulder unchecked.


On 4 April 1985, the county council noticed a deformation of the carriageway, and that the garden area of No. 59 had subsided. The NCB was contacted and denied and liability. By mid-July, Mr. Sparham at The Bungalow was forced to evacuate his house due to a structural change and at the end of July smoke issued from another depression in the garden of No. 59 which belonged to a Mrs. Kent.
Leicestershire county council moved into action and engaged consultants who commenced monitoring procedures for subsidence, temperatures and gaseous emissions. By mid-October the consultants had produced an interim report and the possible extent of the problem was becoming apparent. It was at that stage that I was told of the problem and became involved.
In early November the consultants' first report was received and it was agreed by the county council that a borehole investigation would have to be done to find out the extent of the fire. On 18 November I met the county council's environment committee, which is chaired by Mr. Eric Lodge. I praise Mr. Lodge for the decisive and caring way in which he has dealt with the problem. At that meeting reports were given which stressed the potential dangers and spread of the fire. The NCB had the expertise and detailed knowledge of the area, but was hardly involved, for fear that it might be considered that it was admitting liability.
After that meeting I sought an urgent meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. He immediately recognised the emergency and promised the involvement of the NCB. I am very grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend has dealt with the problem and for the help, assistance and guidance that he has given. I have been told that there are few meetings in his Department at which the problem of Oakthorpe does not arise at some stage.
In the meantime, two further disasters had overtaken the village. Mrs. Kent's house had become so unfit for habitation, due to subsidence caused by the fire, that it had to be demolished. Mrs. Kent was rehoused by the North-West Leicestershire district council.
By November, the media were getting interested in Oakthorpe and when Mr. Bates dug up his ready-baked potatoes the story reached the national headlines. It was the subject of chat shows and "Any Questions" on the BBC and was even featured on Chinese television. However, the story masked the anxieties that Mr. Bates and his aged mother were having about their home, which was literally falling to bits about them.
There are 100 properties in the area that could be affected by the fire and 30 of them have already been affected in one way or another. Since my request to the Under-Secretary, the Coal Board has been increasingly involved. It has done a thermal survey and has four rigs in the area, drilling and injecting grouting to fill the voids left by the burning seam. I am told that in April the NCB will be moving in four more rigs to under pin and protect the local school. The board is working on the protection of The Gate public house by trenching and boring.
The NCB has publicly committed itself to do all that is necessary. The residents of Oakthorpe and I are grateful for its response. However, the NCB is always careful in its statements. It is anxious not to admit liability for the damage. However, as the NCB owns the coal, as it did nothing to stop the fire after its borings in September 1984

and as it has been mining to within 250 m of School street, many of us say that the board has a liability under the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957.
As we agreed in November, when I met the Minister, we are dealing with people's homes and not with piles of bricks. We are grateful that the NCB has been acting speedily to save those homes. Although the board has taken the initiative in carrying out remedial work, the extent of the proposed works is not clear.
We should like a statement from the Government or the NCB that they will deal comprehensively with the problem, whatever its extent. We should like to hear that the cost will be borne by the Government, or the NCB. We should like to hear that the NCB or the Government will meet the full cost of repairs to property and infrastructure caused by this underground heating and its associated subsidence, including all the necessary redecorating to property and reinstatement of gardens.
Not only have foul sewers been damaged, but grouting has filled such things as drainage outfalls, all of which will have to be relaid. The county council has incurred large costs in dealing with the crisis, and a unique disaster of this sort should not be a burden on the ratepayer.
I have seen a letter from the Minister of State, Department of the Environment to the chief executive of the county council, dated 5 February. This letter shows sympathy, but it is sympathy without commitment. I am asking for that commitment.
There are other areas where environmental crises have been due to former mining operations. I am told that in Barnsley and Strathkelvin district methane gas leaking from old workings had gone into the buildings above and been a problem.
In Blaeneu Gwent, three houses over old workings collapsed. A mountainside was destabilised and it is sliding slowly into 170 houses. This was first noted in 1980. If action had been taken then, rather than in 1986, any action would have been far cheaper than it is now. It would have been better to act sooner rather than later.
Simply because this fire is slow burning, is it any less a disaster than if it were a sudden demolition of property? Is it any less a loss of property or hardship to those living in the area because there has fortunately been no loss of life or injury? This is a real and continuing emergency on a large scale, which demands Government action.
There are some possibilities and some solutions. Could the Department of the Environment and the Welsh and Scottish Offices perhaps consider an emergency fund as an insurance? If such a fund could finance immediate remedial work and reclaim costs from whoever was judged responsible for this cost later on, a great deal of good would be done. This would allow the immediate work to be done before the problems worsen, and it would not require anyone to prejudice their legal rights. While some might be insured, the insurance does not always cover all the problems, nor is everyone fully covered.
One very important aspect is that some people are quite unable to sell their properties. Mr. and Mrs. Bown, who have a property, at present unaffected, at 87 School street, in May 1985 purchased another property and put theirs on the market. Then the story of Oakthorpe broke, and although one or two people expressed an interest, they broke off negotiations for fear of the fire.
Can something not be done about this very real hardship? At the very least, either the owners should be compensated for the loss of market value caused by that


fire, or the Government or the NCB should purchase, at full market price, any property in the area affected by the heat, if the owner wishes to sell.
These disasters are not unknown in the mining villages. My hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who are both from coal mining areas, know these problems well. I am rather surprised that not one person is on the Labour or SDP Benches to discuss the suffering of a mining village. They care very little for these mining villages.
We should like a statement of NCB liability, but we realise the real difficulty in which the NCB may be placed by the 1957 Act. We cannot wait for the result of a court case to relieve the situation in Oakthorpe. Even if we had a court case and the NCB were found not to be liable, could the Government abandon the people of Oakthorpe?
In the spirit of our discussions throughout, I do not ask for a finding of legal liability. Instead, I ask for action. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to visit Oakthorpe to see the work that the NCB has been doing and to obtain the facts for himself. Above all, I ask him to meet those who are affected, the local councillor, Mr. Horace Sankey, to whom I must pay tribute for his dedicated assistance, and county council officials. I ask that my hon. Friend visits the area to show that the Government care and to lift the morale and confidence of the residents in the area.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on securing an important opportunity to draw attention to the difficulties faced by the people of Oakthorpe. My hon. Friend has acquired a well-deserved reputation as a diligent and effective constituency Member and on this topic he has argued tirelessly and strongly for a just and equitable solution to the problems that he has outlined. I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate. I do so primarily as a member of the Government, but I am the Minister with special responsibility for the coal industry.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his eloquent account of the events at Oakthorpe and of the impact on the people there. I and many of my ministerial colleagues—I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, on the Government Front Bench—much appreciate the concern which must be felt by those living in and around the village and by the bodies concerned, the two local authorities—Leicestershire county council and the North-West Leicestershire district council—and the National Coal Board, irrespective of any issues of liability. I am pleased to see present tonight my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), both of whom have been strong supporters of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West in his determination to help those of his constituents who are facing serious difficulties.
One of the things which tends to characterise a community at a time of difficulty is the way in which all concerned pull together to deal with the problem in hand. I understand that all three of the parties I have mentioned are working closely together to do what is necessary to fight the fire and to deal with the consequences.
The Government have been following with close interest and concern events at Oakthorpe since the fire was first drawn to their attention last autumn. I have received letters from a number of people who live at Oakthorpe. They have been very moving letters. I am therefore pleased to be able to report to the House tonight that much positive progress has been made in helping them.
I have been regularly informed by the National Coal Board of the action which it has decided to take. I have been impressed by the depth of its concern. It has not waited for legal wrangles about liability—a matter which can be settled ultimately only by the courts—before taking action as a good neighbour at Oakthorpe. I understand that it has brought together its own mining expertise and that of contractors specially brought in to work there to consider how to fight the fire and how to deal with the effect of the damage by the underground heating on properties in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West has paid tribute to that. The business of tracing the origins of the fire and then of dealing with it is, I am told, a specialised engineering feat.
Since the beginning of January a highly specialised firm of construction engineers under contract to the board has completed an initial drilling programme. The purpose of this was exploratory, to ascertain ground temperature and so plot the fire's course. Several drilling rigs made a total of 62 boreholes and the evidence from these has led the board to instruct the contractors to embark on an extensive exercise to limit and dowse the fire.
The current operation involves constructing a cement curtain around each individual property affected, with the object of shielding it from the effects of high temperatures. In addition, the introduction of cement into the surrounding coal seam acts to cut off the underground air flow and so contributes to extinguishing the fire. The cement is pumped into the seam by way of holes drilled around each property or by a surrounding trench. The process is called grouting.
The latest figures from the National Coal Board show that to date the contractor had drilled 182 boreholes and introduced over 88 tonnes of grouting material into the earth. The results of this operation have been encouraging. The grouting of one house is now complete and tests have been carried out. These show early indications that the process is beginning to bring the fire under control. The board has decided therefore to pursue the grouting operation on other properties in close consultation and with the consent of individual owners and tenants.
Furthermore, I have been assured that the health and welfare both of the inhabitants of Oakthorpe and the contractor's employees is a priority during this operation. Regular monitoring and testing of temperature and for the presence of carbon monoxide are being carried out, and remedial measures would be put into effect, if the levels were to rise. Emergency arrangements have been well planned. Some properties have, for example, been fitted with carbon monoxide alarms as a precautionary measure. I understand, having talked to senior officials earlier tonight, that so far there has fortunately been very little evidence of carbon monoxide. That is good news for all concerned.
The National Coal Board is also in regular contact with the Oakthorpe residents' action group, dealing with individual and general queries and the supply of regular information on work in progress. Day-to-day problems are dealt with on the spot by an NCB engineer who visits the


village daily. I understand that as part of the general information gathering and dissemination process a further public meeting is to take place.
Remedial work is of course at an early stage as this operation requires precision and expertise, but the National Coal Board has good reason to believe that the methods employed will be successful. Plans are already being formulated for renovation of the sites by landscape gardening. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West will have found this catalogue of National Coal Board action encouraging.
I think that the fire at Oakthorpe demonstrates very convincingly that the NCB is a concerned body which is anxious to do all that it can to relieve hardship to communities. In this case it is not even the board's actions which have caused the problem, nor does it necessarily have any responsibility in the matter. But because NCB staff are best placed technically to provide advice and practical assistance, they have stepped in and co-operated with the local authorities to solve the problem, as I have explained tonight. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions that the board's actions are the result of my intervention; but I have to tell him that he exaggerates my influence. I am sure that the board acted out of generosity and public spirit.
Throughout the exercise at Oakthorpe, the National Coal Board has been working in close co-operation with the local authorities and their contractors. This is a fine example of community effort. In addition to helping on the technical side, I understand that the local authorities are also taking action to ensure that people in the village are being rehoused, if necessary. I am sure the House will agree that all those concerned have made and are continuing to make strenous efforts to deal swiftly and energetically with the immediate problem of dowsing the underground fire. I congratulate them on their skill, energy and enthusiasm. However, there is a distressing side to the story of which my hon. Friend reminded us tonight. He rightly pointed out that we are speaking of damage to people's homes and the resulting heartache and anxiety caused to a close-knit community. That is, indeed, a serious matter.
The local authorities have been energetic in seeking help to meet costs already incurred. My hon. Friend the

Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government has been in touch with them recently to ascertain the position, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West referred to the letter of 5 February. I understand that the Department is now considering the position but is still awaiting from the local authorities my hon. Friend's request for further financial information. I hope that that can be provided as quickly as possible. I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that her Department will then consider urgently whether any financial assistance would be appropriate.
The question of liability is, however, a complex issue which cannot be addressed without careful consideration of the long-term consequences. Both the Government and. the NCB must remember that they are dealing with public money. The immediate and overriding aim must be to dowse the fire. I hope that I have persuaded the House that the NCB and the other parties concerned are doing all that is humanly possible to do that.
I should like to end by assuring the House and. through my hon. Friend, the people of Oakthorpe that the Government are keeping closely in touch with the position there, and that I and my ministerial colleagues hope that progress will quickly be made to overcome their problems. My hon. Friend has rightly emphasised an invitation for me to visit Oakthorpe, and I thank him for it. I accept the invitation, obviously, without any commitment regarding eventual financial liabilities, but as an opportunity to see for myself the results of work already carried out. providing me with first-hand experience of the position which I can also pass to my hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment.
There will undoubtedly be difficult judgments to make in the future about where responsibilities for this fire lie. But we may congratulate all the parties concerned on being prepared to take action to solve the immediate problems. at Oakthorpe on a without prejudice basis. I know that I can rely on my hon. Friend to keep me in touch with progress, and I hope that what I have said will have done much to reassure the people of Oakthorpe.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.